338.8 
Jl9e 


OAK  ST.  tlDSt 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,    mutilation,   and   underlining   of   books 
are  reasons  for  disciplinary  action  and   may 
result   in   dismissal   from   the   University. 
UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    LIBRARY    AT    URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


L161  — O-1096 


AN   EXPOSITION 


^ 


CHARACTER  AND  MANAGEMENT 


NEW  JEBSEYJOIll  lOBOPOLIES, 


THE  CAMDEN  AND  AMBOY  RAILROAD 

AND  TRANSPORTATION  COMPANY:  THE  DELAWARE  AND  RARITAN 

CANAL  COMPANY, 


Juir   their   ^penlrngcs. 


BY     GEORGE    N .    T  A  T  H  A  M 


PHILADELPHIA: 

KING    &   BAIRD,    PRINTERS,    No.    9   SANSOM    STREET. 

1852. 


v 


\ 


T\se 


• 


# 


rJ-- 


PEEFACE 


Oo 


Some  explanation  may  be  due  to  the  public  and  to  myself  respecting  the  causes  that  have 
led  to  this  publication.  It  is  the  more  necessary  inasmuch  as  E.  A.  Stevens,  and  others  with  him, 
have  dragged  our  island  controversy  before  the  public,  probably  to  divert  attention  from  them- 
selves, and  have  assailed  me  in  twin  publications  :  one  of  them  called  a  "  Memorial,"  and  the  other 
a  '•lleport  of  a  Committee,"  respecting  the  paternity  of  which  I  have  something  more  to  say,  for 
in  both,  the  authors,  learned  in  the  law,  have  stated  or  suppressed  facts  as  best  suited  the  monopo- 
lists, and  generally  have  come  about  as  near  the  truth,  I  suppose,  as  their  consciences  Avould  let 
them. 

It  would  be  out  of  place  to  discuss  the  island  question  hei'e.     Suffice  it  to  say,  that  in  1848  and 
1849  I  had  purchased  ancient  title  and  claim,  both  under  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania;  and  with 
tlie  full  concurrence  of  the  officers  of  the  Land  Department  at  Harrisburg,  myself  and  other  owners 
Ci'      had  afterwards  applied  for  and  obtained  patents  from  the  State,  under  the  Act  of  1806. 
C^  The  statement  that  I  ever  sought  to  deprive  any  man,  or  the  Ferry  Company,  of  their  rights,  by 

^*     these  or  any  other  proceedings,  is  equally  silly  and  unfounded,  and  indeed  constitutionally  impos- 
sible.    I  endeavored  to  purchase  every  possible  claim  to  the  land  I  wanted, — for  actual  use. 
f-  Finding  that  the  Ferry  Company  claimed  600  feet  of  land  under  an  act  authorizing  the  con- 

^  structiou  of  a  canal,  which  they  had  made  150  feet  in  width,  I  made,  in  1850,  many  efforts  to 
prevent  a  controversy,  but  without  success.  The  company  afterwards  committed  a  gross  trespass 
upon  my  possession,  for  which  I  sued  them,  necessarily  in  the  name  of  my  lessee,  and  with  his 
full  concurrence.  On  the  30th  November  the  Ferry  Company  corrupted  and  bribed  my  tenant  to 
take  a  lease  under  themselves,  and  in  February,  1851,  he  discontinued  the  action.  I  then  instituteil 
Qj  an  ejectment.  The  company  were  made  defendants.  The  cause  was  tried  in  the  District  Court  in 
l^  May.  Judge  Siiakswood  ruled  that  the  canal  of  the  Ferry  Company  was  the  boundary  of  their 
right,  and  that  they  could  gain  no  title  under  my  lessee  against  his  landlord.  Of  course  the 
C^  verdict  went  against  them.  A  motion  for  a  new  trial  was  argued  and  overruled  in  June,  1851. 
"^  They  then  took  the  case  to  the  Supreme  Court.  Mr.  Stevens,  in  his  publication,  says  I  "  must 
^  be  eventually  defeated."  But  probably  the  master-spirit  of  the  Napoleon  Line  could  hardly  find 
fC^-^   an  unfeed  lawyer  to  endorse  his  prophecy. 

A  de.'iire  to  know  who  my  overbearing  adversaries  were,  led  me  into  an  investigation  of  the 
character  of  the  New  Jersey  monopolies,  of  which  this  Ferry  Company  is  a  sort  of  branch.  The 
facts  that  presented  themselves  were  so  extraordinary,  that  irrespective  of  the  island  controversy, 
I  resolved  to  lay  them  before  the  Pennsjdvania  Legislature. 

In  March,  1852,  two  bills  at  my  instance  were  read  in  place,  and  referred  to  the  House  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means.  One  of  these  proposed  to  tax  the  monopolists,  and  their  appendages,  upon 
their  offices,  their  business,  and  their  estate  in  Pennsylvania,  and  the  other  to  render  their  mal- 
practices and  overcharges  punishable  in  our  own  courts. 

The  matters  involved  were  discussed  in  committee  on  the  29th  March.  Most  of  the  facts  stated 
in  these  pages  were  laid  before  them.  It  was  shown,  among  other  things,  that  the  Philadelphia 
and  Trenton  Rail  Pioad  Company  were  defaulters  to  the  State  in  a  large  amount,  under  management 
and  pretences  that  wanted  legislation.  The  subject  was  voluminous,  and  seemed  to  fall  upon  dull 
ears.  The  committee  were  overburthened  with  business.  Not  one  of  them  took  notes.  The  bills 
were  evidently  "smothered."  A  few  days  before  the  close  of  the  session  the  chairman  said  he 
"  had  not  thought  of  the  subject  since  the  day  of  the  argument." 

About  the  middle  of  April  I  presented  a  memorial  to  the  Senate  concerning  the  associated 
companies,  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  They 
reported  a  resolution  for  the  appointment  of  an  investigating  committee,  to  sit  during  the  recess, 
with  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers.  It  was  delayed  and  resisted  in  the  Senate  (whilst  the 
partisans  of  the  monopolists  were  busy  without,)  until  the  3d  of  May,  the  morning  before  the  final 
adjournment,  when,  after  a  long  and  warm  contest,  the  resolution  failed  by  a  tie  vote. 

On  the  same  busy  morning  a  very  long  document,  professing  to  be  a  report  of  the  House  Com- 
mittee, was  presented  in  that  branch  of  the  legislature.  The  manner  in  which  it  was  introduced 
may  h^imrthj  understood  by  the  following  note  to  me  from  the  Hon.  Gkohge  H.  Hart,  one  of  the 
Committee, — its  most  efficient  member, — and  a  representative  from  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 

Philadelphia,  October  6,  1852. 
George  N.  Tatham,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir  : — "  You  ask  whether  I  coincided  with,  or  was  instrumental  in  preparing  the  statements 
contained  in  the  report  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  on  the  subject  of  taxing  certain 
incorporations  and  associated  companies,  &c.,  &c.,  as  submitted  on  the  day  befoi-e  the  adjournment 
of  the  legislature  of  1852. 


4    ^        ^  PREFACE. 


"  In  reply,  I  will  state  that  I  was  not  ihstrumental  in  preparing  such  report;  and  although  I 
was  obliged,  by  a  combination  of  circumstances,  to  perform  much  of  the  responsible  and  arduous 
duties  assigned  to  the  Chairman  of  that  Committee,  in  making  up  the  estimates  for  all  the  ordinary 
expenses  of  the  Government, — the  provisions  for  the  Canals  and  llaih-oads  of  the  Commonwealth, 
and  their  repairs,  &c.  &c.,  and  preparing  the  general  act :  in  addition  to  a  full  proportion  of  other 
duties  assigned  to  me  by  the  Speaker  as  an  experienced  Legislator:  I  had  no  notice  of  a  meeting 
of  the  Committee  at  the  time  the  report  is  said  to  have  been  submitted,  and  therefore  knew  nothing 
of  the  character  of  it,  until  I  saw  it  in  print  months  after." 

"The  means  adopted  by  the  Chairman,  in  calling  the  meeting  at  an  eai-ly  hour  in  the  moi-ning, 
for  the  purpose  of  submitting  so  important  a  report,  and  at  a  time  when  he  knew  certain  of  the 
members  would  not  be  present  without  notice,  was,  in  my  opinion  as  unjustifiable  as  it  was  un- 
usual. There  are  several  particulars  contained  in  the  document  referred  to  that  are  inconsistent 
with  the  province  of  the  Committee,  and  in  my  opinion,  with  the  facts,  so  far  as  evidenced  by  either 
of  the  parties." 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

G.  H.  Hart. 

I  have  some  evidence,  (and  not  a  particle  of  doubt,)  that  this  "  Report"  was  prepared  by  the 
Counsel  of  the  Monopolists,  and  that  its  contents  were  but  imperfectly  known,  if  at  all,  to  the 
Committee.  In  August  last,  this  "  Report"  first  met  my  eye,  reprinted  by  the  Companies.  Its 
character  may  be  judged  of  by  a  few  particulars. 

It  states  that  my  charges  against  the  Joint  Companies  "  were  examined  by  Commissioners  ap- 
"  pointed  by  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey,  some  three  years  ago,  who,  in  a  report  made  on  the 
"8th  February,  1850,  completely  exonerated  the  Companies,  and  their  officers  from  them." 

This  statement  is  simply  and  absolutely  untrue.  Let  that  Report  of  1850  be  compared  with 
these  pages,  or  with  my  memorial.  It  will  be  herein  seen,  at  pages  17  and  21,  that  in  the  reports  of  the 
New  Jersey  Commissioners,  both  of  1848,  and  1850,  they  have  avoided  altogether  the  expression  of 
any  opinion  upon  those  few  of  the  present  accusations  that  were  even  incidentally  before  them. 
Iheir  affair  was  with  the  interests  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

Again._  It  is  alleged  in  this  "Report,"  that  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road  Company 
"  have  divided  regularly  aZ^  their  nett  profits,  and  declared  them  according  to  law,  and  have  paid  into 
"  the  State  Treasury  all  taxes  upon  the  same,  whether  under  their  charter,  or  the  tax  acts  of 
"1840  and  1844." 

As  if  by  way  of  comment  upon  these  allegations,  the  monopolists  have,  since  this  report,  paid 
to  the  State  a  small  portion  of  these  very  taxes,  withheld,  without  even  color  of  excuse,  ever  since 
1836,  1837,  and  1838.  The  incorrectness  of  the  whole  statement  will  be  found  exposed  herein- 
after at  pages  22  to  26. 

There  was  a  Bill,  about  escheats  of  lands  held  by  or  in  trust  for  foreign  corporations,  reported 
at  my  instance  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance.  The  present  law  exposes  the  interests  of 
the  Commonwealth  to  be  defeated.  There  is  no  instance  of  its  having  been  executed.  It  is  stated 
in  this  "  Report"  that  "  the  effect  of  this  bill  would  be  to  strip  Helena  Packer,  a  fatherless  and 
"motherless  child,  of  every  dollar  she  has  in  the  world.'""  It  is  almost  said  that  such  was  my 
intention. 

The  unjustifiable  nature  of  the  statement  will  appear  by  reference  to  the  evidence  of  John  R. 
Thomson  before  the  New  Jersey  Commissioners.  (See  their  Report  of  1850,  Appendix,  p.  29.)  In 
the  sale  of  the  Company's  coal  lands  in  1846  to  R.  W.  Packer,  (now  about  half  paid  for,)  it  was 
substantially  agreed  that  if  the  title  failed,  the  purchase  money  should  be  recoverable  back.  The 
law  as  it  existed,  forfeited  the  property.  But,  Mr.  Packer  was  said  to  have  improved  the  land. 
No  body  was  more  desirous  than  myself  that  the  interests  of  his  estate  should  be  protected.  It  had 
already  been  done,  by  Act  of  Assembly,  when  this  atrocious  "  report"  was  smuggled  into  the  House, 
which  endeavoring  to  shelter  the  monopolists  under  sympathy  for  Packer's  child, — avoiding  or 
misrepresenting  the  real  matters  before  the  Committee,— goes  out  of  its  way,  into  subjects  not 
before  them,  to  libel  the  citizen  who  dared  to  expose  the  misconduct  and  defalcations  of  the  Wew 
Jersey  monopolists.  These  and  other  fabi'ications,  circulated  by  an  army  of  mercenaries  among 
the  members  of  the  Legislature,  had  their  effect  with  many  worthy  men.  It  is  only  another 
proof  of  the  character  of  these  corporate  monopolies,  dangerous  alike  to  private  and  to  public 
safety. 
_  It  is  not  a  new  remark,  nor  the  less  true  for  being  old,  that  men  of  reputable  estimation,  in  asso- 
ciated bodies,  are  sometimes  found  to  join  in  proceedings  which  as  individuals  they  would  condemn. 
The  reader  of  these  pages  may  make  the  application. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  confine  myself  chiefly  to  such  facts  as  can  be  verified  by  the  laws  and  public 
documents  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey:  The  official  reports  of  the  State  Directors  :  The  reports  and 
addresses  of  the  Joint  Board  of  Directors  and  of  Special  Committees  of  the  Consolidated  Compa- 
nies; The  reports  of  the  New  Jersey  Commissioners  of  Investigation,  both  of  1848  and  1850,  with 
the  statements  and  testimony  under  oath  of  the  officers  of  the  Companies  and  others  before  them, 
such  as  John  R.  Thomson,  James  Morrell,  Wm.  H.  Gatzmer,  John  D.  Hagar  and  others ;  besides 
the  answer  in  Chancery,  under  oath,  of  Edwin  A.  Stevens,  J.  R.  Thomson  and  James  Nieison,  to 
Mr.  Hagar's  Bill  in  Equity  against  them.  For  every  material  fact,  not  publicly  notorious,  my 
authority  has  been  given.  If  injustice  has  been  done,  it  can  be  easily  exposed.  But,  if  the 
official  statements  and  oaths  of  the  parties  themselves  cannot  be  relied  upon— if  these  be  slander, 
they  must  make  the  most  of  it. 

„, .,  ^  ,  , .     ^  GEORGE  N.  TATHAM. 

Philadelphia,  Oct.  9,  1852. 


NEW  JERSEY  CANAL  AND  RAILROAD  MONOPOLY. 


Report  1850, 
part  1,  p.  33, 
Ac. 


JOINT    COMPANIES. 

The  "  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  and  Transportation  Company"  and 
the  "  Delaware  and  Raritan  Canal  Company,"  were  iDCorporated  on  the 
fourth  day  of  February,  A.  D.,  1880,  by  separate  acts  of  the  Legislature  of 
New  Jersey.  Oq  the  fifteenth  day  of  February,  IbSl,  the  two  companies 
were  consolidated  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  and  have  since  formed  sub- 
stantially a  single  body  under  the  name  of  the  "joint  or  consolidated  com- 
panies." 

The  officers  of  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  Company. 

Robert  L.  Stevens,  President. 

Edwin  A.  Stevens,  Treasurer  and  Superintendent. 

Wm.  H.  Thomson,  Secretary. 

W.  H.  Gatzmer,  Philadelphia,  and  Ira  Bliss,  New  York,  Agents  for 
Passenger  lines. 

Wm.  S.  Freeman,  Philadelphia,  and  Alfred  Decker,  New  York,  Agents 
for  Transportation  lines. 

Benjamin  Fish,  Central  x\gent,  Trenton. 

Officers  of  the  Canal  Company. 

Robert  F.  Stockton,  President. 
John  R.  Thomson,  Secretary. 
James  Nielson,  Treasurer. 
N.  Welch,  Engineer. 

The  Act  of  February  15,  1831,  consolidating  the  Companies,  declared  Laws  X.  J., 

their  stock  to  be  "Joint  stock  ;"  directed  a  joint  Board  of  Directors;  ren-  ^g/g'^f ''I'gn^. 

dered  the  Companies  jointly  liable  on  all  contracts,  and  gave  them  power  dixjp.'ao. 
to  sue  jointly  and  to  be  sued,  substantially  as  one  Corporation. 

The  Joint  Board  of  Directors. 

The  two  Boards  of  Directors,  with  the  two  State  Directors  meet  at  Bor- 
dentown  at  the  office  of  the  Companies,  and  organize  a  Joint  Board  of 
Directors.  These  manage,  control,  and  direct  all  the  affairs  of  the  two 
Companies. 

They  also  appoint  "aGreneral  Superintendent  of  Accounts,"  and  "an 
Executive  Committee,"  consisting  of  six. 

John  Potter,  Esq.,  was  President  of  the  Joint  Board,  from  its  organiza- 
tion up  to  the  time  of  his  death. 

John  R.  Thom-son,  has  been  Secretary  of  the  Joint  Board,  and  Richard 
Stockton,  Superintendent  of  Accounts. 

In  1848,  the  Joint  Board  of  Directors  was  composed  as  follows  : 


Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  1. 


John  ]Mickle, 
Wm.  McKnight, 
Wra.  Brown, 
R.  Stockton  Field, 
James  Potter, 
Jas.  S.  Green, 
James  Neilson, 
Benjamin  Fish, 
John  C.  Stevens, 

Most  of  these  persons  have  held  these  offices  from  the  establishment  of  the 
Companies. 

On  the  second  of  March,  A  ]^  J^^f^  i%w  was  passed  which,  among 
other  provisions,  enacts:         ^  OOlD  ^v> 


Jno.  J.  Chetwood,  }  State 

Wm.  Irick,  J  Directors. 

John  Potter, 

R.  L.  Stevens, 

Edwin  A.  Stevens, 

R.  F.  Stockton, 

.John  R.  Thomson, 

J.  Parker, 

G.  D.  Wall, 


Address  184S. 
p.  26. 


MONOPOLY. — CHARTER  PERPETUAL. 


Laws  N,  J., 
incorpo- 
rating, &c., 
IJage  32. 


lb.  p.  25, 


lb.  p.  27. 


Director's  re- 
port, 1840,  p. 

Laws  N.  J., 
1849,  appen- 
dix, p.  33. 


"Section  2.  That  it  shall  not  be  lawful,  at  any  time  during  the  said 
railroad  charter,  to  construct  any  other  railroad,  or  railroads,  in  this  State, 
without  the  consent  of  the  said  companies,  which  shall  be  intended  or  used 
for  the  transportation  of  passengers  or  merchandise  between  the  cities  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  or  to  compete  in  business  with  the  railroad 
authorized  by  the  act  to  which  this  supplement  is  relative." 

The  Charters  are  perpetual,  subject  to  the  following  provisos : 

Sec.  22.  "  And  he  it  enacted  that  at  the  expiration  of  thirty  years  from 
"the  completion  of  the  said  roads  the  Legislature  of  this  State  may  cause  an 
"appraisement  of  the  said  roads  and  the  appendages  thereof,  to  be  made  by 
"six  persons,  three  of  whom  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Chief  Justice  of  thij 
"  State  for  the  time  being,  the  remaining  three  by  the  Company,"  &c. 
&c.  ko,. 

"  And  thereupon  the  State  shall  have  the  privilege  for  three  years  of 
"  taking  the  said  roads,  upon  payment  within  one  year  after  electing  to 
"  take  the  said  road." 

By  Act  of  February  1831,  Sec.  1,  supplementary  to  the  Charter  of  the 
Delaware  and  liaritan  Canal  Company,  it  was  enacted,  "  that  the  25th  Sec- 
"tion  of  the  act,"  (the  charter)  "to  which  this  is  a  supplement  be  and  the 
"  same  is  hereby  so  amended  as  to  extend  the  time  of  thirty  years  therein 
"  mentioned  to  fifty  years,"  &c. 

The  road  was  agreed  to  have  been  completed  January  1,  1839. 

By  Sect.  4.  of  the  act  of  March  2,  1832,  the  Compauies  are  required  to 
divide  the  whole  of  the  actual  net  profits,  retaining  only  not  exceeding 
$100,000,  to  meet  unexpected  damage  to  the  roads. 

[It  will  be  seen  hereafter,  how  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Railroad 
and  Camden  and  Phihxdelphia  S.  B.  Ferry  Company,  enable  them  to  evade 
this  provision,  by  purchasing  real  estate  for  their  use.] 

As  if  in  order  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  a  purchase  by  the  State,* 
after  strenuous  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  monopolists,  the  Constitution  of 
New  Jersey  was  altered  June  29,  1844.,  and  it  was  ordained : 

Sec.  VI.  Art.  3.  "The  credit  of  the  State  shall  not  be  directly  or  in- 
"  directly  loaned  in  any  case." 

Art.  4.  "  The  Legislature  shall  not  in  any  manner  create  any  debt  or 
"  debts,  liability  or  liabilities  of  the  State  which  shall  singly  or  in  the 
"aggregate,  with  any  previous  debt,  or  liabilities,  at  any  time  exceed  one 
"  huudrcd^  thousand  dollars,  except,"  &c.  &c.  &c.,  "unless  the  same  shall 
"be  authorized  by  a  law  for  some  single  object  or  tvork,  to  be  distinctly 
"specified  therein,"  &c.  &c. — "And  no  such  law  shall  take  effect  until  it 
"shall  at  a  general  election  have  been  submitted  to  the  people,  and  have 
"  received  the  sanction  of  a  majority  of  all  the  votes,"  &c. 

The  roads  and  canal  of  these  companies  being  separate  works,  and  they 
owning  or  controlling  others  to  the  extent  of  millions,  it  is  manifest  that 
admirable  pains  have  been  taken  to  fortify  their  Charters  in  perpetuity. 

This  monopoly  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit,  if  not  actually  prohibited 
by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  provides. 

Art.  4.  Sec.  2.  "  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privi- 
"  leges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  states." 

But  if  Edwin  A.  Stevens,  R.  L.  Stevens,  Robert  F.  Stockton  and  others 
are  invested  with  a  monopoly  of  railway  transportation  between  New  York 
and  Philadelphia,  with  which  no  competition  shall  be  allowed,  and  if  these 
parties  are  further  clothed  with  the  power  of  taxing  the  citizens  of  other 
States,  (under  the  pretence  of  taxing  through  travel)  whilst  loay  travel  is 
exempted,  it  is  idle  to  talk  of  equal  privileges  and  immunities. 

Article!.  Section  9.  ^.  5.  of  the  U.  S.  Constitution  declares,  "No 
"preference  shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of  commerce  or  revenue,  to  the 
"  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another,  nor  shall  vessels  bound  to  or  from 
"  one  State  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear  or  pay  duties  in  another." 

Art.  1.  Sec.  10.  \.  2.     "No  State  shall  without  the  consent  of  Congress 

*  John  R.  Thomson,  Secretary*6f  the  Joint  Boar(j,  -was  most  prominent  in  the  work. 


UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. 


"lay  any  imposts  or  duties  on  imports  or  exports,  except  -what  may  be  abso- 
"  lutely  necessary  for  executing  its  inspection  laws ;  and  the  nett  produce  of  all 
«  duties  and  imposts  laid  in  any  State  on  imports  or  exports  shall  be  for 
''  the  use  of  the  treasury  of  the  United  States."  "  No  State  shall  without 
''  the  consent  of  Congress  lay  any  duty  on  tonnagr,"  etc. 

At  this  date,  steam  transportation  by  water  and  by  land  was  unknown. 

But,  if  New  Jersey  has  granted  a  monopoly  of  railway  transportation 
between  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  to  Messrs.  Stevens,  Stockton  and  Report  of 

,     .  .•'.,.,  1        1       •      ,/  >>         1    ii  .Joint  Isoara, 

their  associates — m  which  monopoly  she  is  "A  partner,    and  they  are  is40,  p.  8. 
"  HER  LESSEES  AND  AGENTs" — empowered  to  levy  duties  for  the  State,  by  Address  1S46, 
means  of  excessive  freights  and  fares,  especially  aimed  at,  and  discriminating  p-^"-  ">>  17, 
against  the  social  and  business  intercourse  of  the  citizens  of  other  States 
across  her  soil — and  at  the  same  time  carefully  exempting  her  own  com- 
merce from  such  impositions,  then  is  New  Jersey  wanting  in  comity  towards 
her  sister  States — ungenerous  and  unjust  to  their  people,  and  faithless  to 
her  national  obligations. 

The  constitutionality  of  this  monopoly  was  somewhat  discussed  in  1835, 
when  the  State  Legislature  was  asked  for  authority  to  lay  rails  upon  "  the 
straight  turnpike,"  now,  the  branch  road  from  Trenton  to  New  Brunswick. 
The  companies  claimed  that  their  charters  were  contracts,  and  inviolable. 
Chief  Justice  Taney,  then  at  the  Bar,  and  others,  gave  opinions  that  the 
Legislature  had  the  right  to  authorize  the  rails.  It  is  alleged  that  several 
distinguished  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  monopoly,  maintained  their  views. 

But,  has  New  Jersey  the  right  to  make  a  wa^iVZ  contract  with  her  own 
ayents,  and  give  them  a  monopoly,  to  do  by  indirection  that  which  she  has 
no  power  to  do  directly,  and  tax  the  citizens  and  merchandise  of  other  States 
in  transition  across  her  soil  ?  A  principle  is  worthless  unless  it  will  bear 
being  pushed  home.  If  that  State,  by  such  a  contract,  too  sacred  to  be 
impaired,  may  grant  a  monopoly  of  any  kind  of  road,  or  of  any  means  of 
through  transportation,  then,  she  may  monopolize  and  fetter  all  sorts  of 
conveyance,  even  by  horses,  or  by  human  limbs.  If  she  can  impose  a  tax 
of  sixty  cents,  why  not  sixty  dollars  ?  Why  may  she  not  load  to  interdic- 
tion all  throuijli  transportation,  and  drive  New  Yorkers  and  Philadelphian«, 
through  winter's  snow  and  ice,  across  the  Alleghanies,  or  around  by  sea  ? 
Under  the  National  constitution,  no  State  possesses  such  authority. 

The  maintenance  of  public  highways  was  part  of  the  "  trinoda  nccessi'as"  uj.  comm.,  1 
of  ancient  law,  from  which  no  condition  or  estate  could  be  exempt.     Shall  and  2. 
this  vital  public  necessity,  the  right  of  way,  be  restricted,  fanned,  monopo- 
lized and  taxed  by  the  local  representatives  appointed  to  protect,  not  sell 
the  public  rights  ? 

It  has  been  adjudged  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  that  a 
State  Legislature  may  take  the  franchises  of  a  bridge  corporation,  for  public  ^_  Rop'orts  p'. 
use,  upon  making  compensation.     The  state  power  to  grant  such  a  local  .^07,  A.  D. 
franchise,  not  beinj  icithin  the  j^urview  of  the.  IQth  section  of  art.  1  of  the  ^*'^^- 
U.  S.  Constitution,  was  aiiirmcd.     But  this  is   not  a  local  matter.     The 
people  of  the  whole  State,  and  of  the  United  States,  are  interested,  and  have 
rights  which  no  State  Legislature  has  authority  to  grant  away.     If  such 
a  contract  is  not  valid,   then   it  may  be  set  aside  without  compensation. 
Franchises  arc  grantable  for  public  good,  not  merely  fur  private  emolu- 
ment; and  that  public  good  is  not  to  be  mc-asured  simply  by  the  good  of 
New  Jersey  and  her  monopolists,  and  to  be  directed  against  the  rest  of  the 
NATION.     When  fairly  tested  in  the  Court  of  last  resort,  it  will  probably 
be  found  that  no  such  power  of  taxation  of  the  right  of  way  exists  in  the 

Note. — Impositions  on  the  right  of  way  at  best  savor  of  the  dark  ages  and  of  bar- 
barism. The  practice  may  have  been  imported  from  Arabia,  where,  very  likely,  it 
originated.  The  claim,  however,  exercised  alike  by  Jersej^  monopolists  and  by  Arabs, 
across  their  several  sand  barrens,  does  not  rest  upon  the  same  foundation.  If  the 
Bedouin  method  of  levying  "transit  duties"  upon  "strangers  and  persons  not  living 
in"  Arabia,  should  be  supposed  to  exhibit  less  cunnin<j  than  the  Jersej'  mode,  one 
thing  at  least  may  be  said  in  favor  of  the  sons  of  Ishmael — they  never  swore 
allegiance  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


PHILADELPHIA  AXD    TRENTON   RAILROAD    CO. 


iSce  charter. 
Laws  of 
Pennsylvania 
1831,  i832,  p. 
.S6. 

Supplement 
Laws  of 
Pennsylvania 
lS;U-5,  p  84, 
and  supple- 
ment to  P. 
and  T.  R.  R. 
charter,  April 
(5,  1S48.  Laws 
of  Penna., 
]  848,  p.  355. 

Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  84, 
S;'). 


Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  77. 


Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  SI. 
Also  investi- 
.s;ation  1848, 
p.  2L 

Report  1850, 
appx.,  state- 
ment A.,  p.  5. 

Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  82- 
3,  &c. 


several  States,  who  in  this  particular  are  not  sovereign,  and  do  not  possess 
the  "  eminent  domain." 

With  such  a  charter,  the  "  consolidated  companies,"  on  the  completion  of 
their  railroad  and  canal,  acquired,  of  course,  almost  the  whole  inland  trans- 
portation between  the  two  great  cities. 

But  this  invidious  monopoly  was  complained  of  as  unjust,  and,  in  many 
quarters,  opposed.  Among  their  early  rivals  was  the  Philadelphia  and  Tren- 
ton Rail  Road  Company,  which  had  been  incorporated  by  the  Legislature 
of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  23d  of  February,  1832,  to  make  a  railroad  from 
Kensington  District  to  the  Trenton  Delaware  bridge,  (26  miles,)  with  a 
capital  of  one  million  of  dollars.  When  the  railroad  was  completed  to  the 
Trenton  bridge,  an  effort  was  made  to  extend  their  route  across  New  Jersey. 
For  that  purpose  legislative  authority  was  obtained  to  purchase  stock  in  any 
other  company  necessary,  "  to  complete  a  communication  by  railroad  and 
steamboat  to  the  city  of  New  York."  Accordingly,  they  purchased  the 
stock  of  the  straiyht  turvpihe  from  Trenton  to  New  Brunswick  ;  but  in  their 
intention  to  lay  down  rails,  they  were  opposed  before  the  Legislature,  and 
in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  New  Jersey,  by  the  "consolidated  companies." 
The  contest  was  suddenly  brought  to  a  close. 

In  1834  or  1835  the  joint  companies  purchased  900  shares,  a  majority 
of  the  stock  of  the  Trenton  Delaware  Bridge  Company,  with  the  avowed 
object  to  control  the  bridge,  and  prevent  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail 
Road  Company  from  crossing  the  river  into  New  Jersey. 

Soon  afterwards,  Robert  F.  Stockton,  Robert  L.  /Stevens,  and  Edwin  A. 
Stevens,  who  were  among  the  principal  officers  and  stockholders  of  the 
"  consolidated  companies,"  purchased  5500  shares  (a  majority)  of  the  stock 
of  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road  Company.  "  By  this  purchase," 
say  the  commissioners  of  the  New  Jersey  Legislature  in  their  report  of 
1850,  "they  secured  the  control  of  the  operations  of  the  Trenton  and  Phila- 
delphia Rail  Road  Company,  and  thus  saved  the  necessity  of  a  decision  of 
the  question  argued  before  the  chancellor." 

The  opposition  "  being  thus  put  an  end  to,"  the  union  of  the  three  com- 
panies soon  grew  more  intimate.  At  the  request  of  the  principal  stock- 
holders, "  measures  were  taken  for  the  amalgamation  or  amsolidation  of  the 
stocks,"  (to  use  their  own  language,)  and  on  the  first  day  of  November, 
1835,  an  agreement  for  that  purpose  was  made,  followed  on  the  twenty- 
second  day  of  April,  1836,  by  another  more  formal  agreement,  executed  b}- 
the  Presidents  of  the  three  companies,  under  the  corporate  seals,  which 
remains  in  force  at  the  present  time. 

The  fifty-five  hundred  shares  stood  in  the  individual  names  of  R.  F. 
Stockton,  R.  L.  Stevens,  and  F.  A.  Stevens,  up  to  1840,  when  they  trans- 
ferred those  shares  to  Messrs.  Stockton  and  Stevens,  the  Presidents,  in  trust 
for  the  consolidated  companies;*  and  thus  they  now  remain,  the  residue  of 
the  stock  being  chiefly  held  in  the  individual  names  of  those  same  gentle- 
men, (Rep.  1850,  appx.  161,)  and  others  connected  with  them. 

In  1836,  the  joint  companies  offered  to  sell  to  the  State  of  New  Jersey, 
their  entire  works,  "  with  their  appendages,"  among  which  the  Philadelphia  *" 
and  Trenton  Rail  Road  was  expressly  included,  provided  the  State  should 
lease  the  whole  back  to  the  companies  for  36  years,  and  give  them  the 
privilege  o^  charging  for  through  travel  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
§4  by  day,  and  S5  by  night ;  and  j^'ovidcd  that  the  way  fare  should  not 
exceed  three  cents  j^er  mile.  They  offered,  not  merely  their  stock  interest  in 
the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  road,  but  the  road  itself,  absolutely.  See  the 
Report  of  their  Committee,  R.  F.  Stockton,  E.  A.  Stevens,  A.  Brown,  and 
Jas.  S.  Green,  January  23,  1836,  pages  11,  17,  23,  27  and  29. 


®  The  particulars  of  this  transaction  are  stated  in  the  Report  of  1850,  part  2, 
pp.  81,  82  and  83,  and  at  page  73. 

The  oifer  to  transfer  was  dated  Jan.  27th,  1840.  The  holders  stated  to  the  Com- 
panies it  had  cost  them,  in  1835,  -$126  per  share.  [That  is,  .$G93,000.]  That  to 
retain  it  until  now,  it  stood  them  in  §130  per  share.     [That  is,  $715,0U0.]     They 


ANNEXATION  AND  OWNERSHIP. 


The  leading  ownership  and  control  of  tb  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail-  Report  l8oo. 
road  Company,  will  appear  from  the  evidence  of  Willidni  JI  Gatzmer  before  appemlix,  p. 
the  New  Jersey  Commissioners,  taken  October  19,  1849.  '*'    "'• 

Beinc  sworn,  he  said: — "I  am  authorized  and  requested  to  state  to  the 
"  Commissioners,  the  amount  of  stock  held  in  the  joint  companies  by  the  fol- 
"  lowing  individuals,  at  their  instance  :  Messrs.  Jolui  Potter  and  his  two  sons, 
"  James  and  Thomas  F.  own  fortij-one  hundred  shares;  Commodore  Robert 
"  F.  Stocldon  and  his  son  John  F.,  own  four  thousand,  six  hundred  and 
"sixfi/-nine  shares;  Messrs.  JoAm  C,  Robert  L.  and  Edwin  A.  Stevens  own 
"  seven  thousand  and  five  shares.  In  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Ptail- 
"  road  Company,  the  same  individuals  own  as  follows  :  the  Messrs.  Fottcrs 
"  three  hundred  shares;  Robert  F.  Stocton  ten  hundred  and  fifty -nine  shares ; 
"  and  the  Messrs.  /Stevens  seven  hundred  and  twenty-one  shares. 

"  Their  proportional  interest  in  the  five  thousand  five  hind  red  shares  held 
"by  the  joint  companies  is  as  follows:  the  Messrs.  iSlocktons  and  Fottcrs 
^^  sixteen  hundred  and  eight  shares ;  the  Messrs.  Stevens  twelve  hundred  and 
"  eighty-four  shares,  calculating  their  interest  to  be  in  proportion  to  the 
"  amount  of  stock  held  by  them  in  the  joint  companies,  making  in  the  ag- 
"  gregate,  as  held  by  these  two  ianuWes,  fifteen  thousand  seven  hundred  and, 
"  seventyfiour  shares,  out  of  the  thirty  thousand  shares  of  the  capital  stock 
"  of  the  joint  companies,  and  making  seventeen  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
^^  fifty -four  shares  held  by  them  out  of  the  thirty  fiour  thousand  five  liundred 
"  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  both  the  joint  companies  and  the  Philadelphia 
"■  and  Trenton  Railroad  Company,  exclusive  of  fifty-five  hundred  shares  of 
"the  latter  company,  held  by  the  joint  companies,  and  making  the  amount 
"  of  their  interest  in  the  whole /o?Vy  thousand  shares  of  the  joint  companies 
"  and  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Railroad  Company,  equal  to  twenty  thou- 
"  sand  seven  hundred  and  forty-six  shares. 

"  The  interest  of  the  persons  above  named,  have  stood  in  about  the  above 
"  proportion  for  several  years  past. 

"  Roth  families  are  interested,  to  a  considerable  extent,  in  the  loans  of  the 
"  Company,  as  holders  of  the  bonds  of  the  Company." 

Thus,  in  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Railroad  Stock,  in  1849; 

Messrs.  Potters  individually  owned         300  shares, 

R.  F.  Stockton         "  "  1059      " 

Messrs.  Stevens        "  "  721      " 

The  Joint  Companies  "  5500      " 


7580. 
The  balance  of  the  stock  in  other  hands  is     2412 


i  Evidence  of 

Being  the  amount  paid  in  9992  shares  8999,200.  J-^"jy.ip'- 

°  ^  '  port  I8u0,  ap. 

The  officers  and  directors  of  this  Company  will  appear  from  the  following  pendix,  p. 
advertisement : 

►  offered  to  sell  it  to  the  Companies  at  that  price  ($130)  cash,  or,  to  take  $150  per 
share,  in  sterling  bonds  of  the  Joint  Companies,  bearing  five  per  cent,  interest,  at 
par.  It  -was  added,  that  "the  sterling  bonds  of  the  Joint  Companies  at  five  per 
"  cent,  interest  per  annum,  would  net  probably  bring  more  than  from  80  to  85  cents 
"  to  the  dollar."     [P.  82.] 

The  latter  offer  was  accepted.  Sterling  bonds,  £185,000,  were  issued  in  payment. 
"  The  amount  received  by  the  Companies  for  this  loan  was  $824,444  44.  The 
"  whole  of  which  was  paid  for  the  purchase  of  5500  shares  of  the  stock  of  the  Phila- 
"delphia  and  Trenton  Hail  lload,  at  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per  share." 
[p.  73.] 

Hence,  the  profit  upon  this  operation  (above  $130  per  share)  appears  to  have 
been  ....  $109,444  44 

Brokerage,  perhaps    .  .  555  5G 

$110,000  00 


The  New  Jersey  Commissioners  state  the  facts,  without  comment. 


10 


CAMDEN   AND    PHILADELPHIA   S.    B.    FERRY   CO.,    &G. 


OFFICE   PHILADELPHIA   AND   TRENTON   RAILROAD   COMPANY.  \ 
Philadelphia,  January  14,  1852.  ) 

At  a  stated  meeting  of  the  stockholders  held  on  Monday  the  12th  inst., 
the  following  gentlemen  were  unanimously  elected  Directors  for  the  ensuing 
year  : 

William  G.  Alexander,  Robert  F.  Stocliton, 

Robert  L.  Stevens,  William  H.  Hart,      ^ 

Edwin  A.  Stevens,  John  Nagle, 

John  E.  Thomson,  AVilliam  H.  Gatzmer, 

James  S.  Green,  Charles  Macalester, 

Thomas  Biddle,  R.  F.  Loper. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  held  in  the  afternoon,  William  G.  Alexander, 
Esqr.,  was  elected  President,  and  J.  R.  Thomson,  Treasurer. 

J.  MORRELL,  Sec'y. 

\_Evening  Bulletin,  January  14, 1852.] 

Camden  and  Philadelphia  Steamboat  Ferry  Company. 

The  next  step  was  the  annexation  of  the  "  Camden  and  Philadelphia 
steamboat  ferry  company,"  "  the  stock  of  which,"  says  the  State  Director's 
report,  "it  was  considered  important  to  hold  for  the  pui'pose  of  managing  the 
said  ferry,  so  as  not  to  interfere  with  the  operations  of  the  said  companies." 
Accordingly  twelve  hundred  and  seventy-one  shares  (being  a  majority  of  the 
two  thousand  shares  composing  the  stock,)  were  purchased,  and  have  ever 
since  been  held  by  the  Presidents,  R.  L.  Stevens,  and  R.  F.  Stockton,  in 
their  individual  names,  in  trust  for  the  joint  companies. 

The  Camden  and  Philadelphia  steamboat  ferry  company  had  been  incor- 
porated by  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey  (March  5,  1836,)  with  a  capital 
of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  to  establish  a  steamboat  ferry  across  the 
Delaware  between  Camden  and  Philadelphia,  and  with  authority  to  hold 
real  estate  necessary  "  to  carry  into  effect  this  act  and  no  more." 
Capt.  J.  W.  MiCKLE,  President. 

W.  H.  Gatzmer,  Secretary,  and  agent  for  the  Companies. 

The  annexation  of  this  Ferry  Company  gave  the  consolidated  monopolies 
the  last  link  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  it  has  since  been  an 
efficient  instrument  in  their  operations.  By  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of 
Pennsylvania  (February  14, 1888,)  the  ferry  company  was  authorized  to  cut 
a  canal,  or  navigable  passage,  through  Win  1  mill  Island.  By  a  supplement 
to  an  act  passed  April  11,  1840,  and  the  17th  Resolution  of  an  omnibus 
bill,  passed  April  19,  1843,  this  New  Jersey  ferry  company  was  allowed  to 
hold  real  estate  in  Philadelphia  to  the  amount  of  three  hundred  thousand 
dollars.  These  Pennsylvania  privileges  have  been  more  than  fully  used  for 
the  benefit  of  the  New  Jersey  monopolies. 

It  will  be  necessary  to  recur  to  the  two  last  named  companies  hereafter. 

While  the  consolidated  companies  were  thus  gaining  the  complete  com- 
mand of  the  inland  communication  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia, 
they  were  also  acquiring  the  control  of  various  corporations  and  unincorpo- 
rated companies,  which  might  as.sist  or  might  stand  in  the  way  of  their  ope- 
rations. 

Almost,  if  not  quite,  all  the  other  important  transportation  lines  of  New 
Jersey  are  now  owned  or  controlled  by  the  "  consolidated  companies,"  and 
form  substantially  a  confederacy  of  corporations.  The  hypothetical  case 
so  eloquently  pictured,  and  so  justly  deprecated  by  the  joint  board  of  Di- 
rectors themselves,  (in  their  address  to  the  people  of  New  Jersey,  1846,  at 
page  11,)  had  now  fully  come  to  pass. 

"  One  Company  more  powerful  than  the  rest,  indirectly,  would  (read  has) 
"  become  the  owner  of  them  all,  and  thus  establish  (i-cad  has  established) 

"  A  GIGANTIC,  IRRESPONSIBLE,  AND  HYDRA-HEADED  MONOPOLY.     Neither  the 


N.  J.  Stite 
'lirectors'  re- 
port, for  the 
year  1847,  p. 
10. 

Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  8S. 
lb.  appx.,  p. 
122.  lb. 
jippx.  ps.  9 
ana  10. 
Laws  N.  J., 
voL  .3, 1834, 
'?<b  and  '36,  p. 
2()5  to  270. 


Report  1850, 
appx.,  p.  106, 


Laws  Penn- 
sylvania 
1837-8,  p.  25 
to  29. 

Laws  Penn- 
sylvania April 
11,  1840,  ps. 
287-8.  lb. 
April  19, 1843, 
(lage  395. 


Investigation 
Dec,  1848, 
ps.  15.  21.  53. 


Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  73. 
Loans,  also 
appx.,  p,  100, 
Ac,  &e. 


IMPOSTS. — TRANSIT   DUTIES.  11 

"  interest  of  the  State,  nor  public  conveniexce  and  safety  would  have 
"  been  (neither  are)  subserved  bj  such  a  sj'stem." 

The  rights  of  other  States  and  their  interests  have  been  and  arc  affected 
under  this  unconstitutional  monopoly. 

1st.  By  imposts,  called  tranalt  duties,  which  are  imposed  in  favor  of  the 
treasury  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  transportation  of  all  passengers  and  mer- 
chandise belonging  to  other  States. 

2d.  By  the  discriminating  fares  and  freights,  practically  charged  on  citi- 
zens of  other  States,  over  and  above  what  are  charged  on  the  citizens  of 
New  Jersey. 

od.  By  the  extortion,  for  a  long  period,  directly  and  indirectly  of  higher 
fares  and  higher  freights  than  even  the  excessive  charges  allowed  by  their 
own  charters. 

And  First,  of  the  transit  duties.  By  the  original  charters  a  duty  of  tc7i  invest; ^'ation 
cents  on  every  passenger,  and  fifteen  cents  on  every  ton  of  merchandise,  was  of  iS-ts,  p.  i;;. 
imposed  alike  on  citizens  of  New  Jersey  and  on  strangers.  The  supplement  Republished 
of  1831,  February  4th,  alters  this,  and  provides  "That  the  said  company  Qf'^*"J'  {^7u 
"  shall  pay  to  the  State  the  sum  of  ten  cents  on  each  passenger  carried  on  vol.5,  appx.,' 
''  the  said  railroad  across  the  State,  between  the  Delaware  river  and  Raritan  P-29. 
"  bay." 

The  object  of  this  e-nactment  was  very  transparent.     The  internal  inter-  Address  184S, 
course  was  exempted  from  the  burthen — and  color  was  given  for  an  increase  '^'  ^^' 
of  freights  and  fares  to  be  charged  on  citizens  of  other  States. 

Indeed,  this  intention,  and  its  consequences,  have  characterized  all  New 
Jersey  legislation  on  the  subject. 

The  New  Jency  Rail  Road  Co.,  chartered  March  7th,  1832,  (from  Jersey 
City,  30  miles  to  New  Brunswick)  a  partner  and  fellow-laborer  with  the 
monopolies,  avoided  payment  of  similar  transit  duties  to  the  state  upon 
passengers  from  and  to  Jersey  City  and  New  Brunswick, — on  the  ground 
that  they  did  not  pa  s  over  "  the  whole  line  of  their  road,"  which  extended 
a  mile  or  two  beyond  the  New  Brunswick  depot  to  the  point  of  junction 
with  the  roads  of  the  Joint  Companies. 

The  N.  J.  State  Treasurer  claimed  transit  duties. 

R.  Stooktox  Field,  Esqr.,  Attorney-general,  dating  Princeton,  Dec.  5., 
1839,  in  his  official  opinion  says:  ^ 

"  This  tax  or  transit  duty  was  to  attach  when  any  other  rail  road  should  itxnl Qom.  of 
"  intersect  the  N.  J.  RailBoad  "so  as  to  make  a  continued  line  of  rail  roads  N.  J.  Legisln- 
^' carrying  passewjers   across  the  State  of  New  Jersey  hetween  the  State  of  ^^^^'  ^^''^I'f'' 
"New  York  and  Pennsylvania."     It  would  seem  therefore  as  if  the  legis-         '  !'•  '  ■ 
"  lature  supposed  that  passengers  transported  over  the  whole  line  of  the  N. 
"  J.  Rail  Road  would  be  for  the  most  part  passengers  travelling  across  the 
"  State  of  New  Jersey,  and  between  the  State  of  ^a^  York  and  Pennsyl- 
"  vania — and  such  is  precisely  the  case." 

"I  am  rather  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  the  Treasurer  is  not  bound  to 
"include  them  in  his  quarterly  returns." 

R.  S.  FIELD,  Attorney  General. 

An  interesting  contrivance  had  been  adopted  by  the  monopolies  to  evade 
the  payment  to  the  State  of  New  Jersey  of  the  transit  duties  upon  through 
passengers  by  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road. 

Messrs.  King,  Pennington  and  Parker,  Commissioners  in  the  Investigation 
of  184:8,  tell  us,  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  year  1838,  on  the  completion 
of  the  branch  road  from  Bordentown  to  Trenton,  the  through  passengers  by 
the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road  were  taken  up  by  the  Camden  and 
Amboy  Rail  Road  at  Trenton.  "  The  passengers  left  the  cars  of  the  former 
"  Company,  crossed  the  Canal  Bridge  on  foot,  and  then  entered  the  cars  of  yjT|'*'^^''2g 
"the  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  Company.  The  Company  deemed  '^^^°^ 
"these  to  be  '  loay^  passengers,  and  did  not  include  them  in  the  quarterly 
"  returns  cf  that  year,  (1838.)" 

This  produced  a  correspondence  between  the  Companies;  the  State  Trea- 


12 


STATE   REVENUE. 


Re-published 
fiharter  of  N. 
J.  monopo- 
lies 1849,  ps. 
28  and  29. 
Report  1850, 
T>.  18,  part  1. 
LawB  of  N.  J. 
suplementary 
to  charter. 


surer,  and  the  Attorney  General.  It  was  laid  before  the  Legislature  in  1840. 
A  Joint  Committee  was  appointed,  who  reported  March  8,  1841,  (p.  8)  : 
"  The  Committee  cannot  perceive  that  either  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  the 
"  law  justifies  the  construction  contended  for  by  the  Companies."  They 
reported  a  resolution,  authorizing  the  Attorney  General  to  employ  addi- 
tional counsel,  and  to  prosecute  them.  (p.  12.)  The  whole  case  was  published 
by  the  Legislature. 

Finding  that  a  judicial  decision  would  inevitably  be  against  them,  the 
Joint  monopolies  compromised  with  the  State,  and  paid  the  transit  duties 
thus  evaded. 

A  joint  resolution  of  the  New  Jersey  Legislature,  March  10,  1842 — ac- 
cepted by  the  Companies  under  seal,  October  3,  1842 — regulates  and  finally 
adjusts  the  transit  duty  at  ten  cents  on  every  passenger,  and  fifteen  cents  a 
ton  on  all  merchandise  carried  across  the  State,  from  the  Delaware  to  the 
Raritan,  no  matter  how.  And  the  State  of  New  Jersey  has  ever  since 
enjoyed  her  imposts  upon  "  strangers,  and  persons  not  living  in  New 
"  Jersey." 

It  has  been  heretofore  shown  that  this  impost  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  If  a  State  has  a  right  to 
levy  ten  cents  on  every  passenger  across  her  territory,  she  has  a  right  to 
levy  ten  hundred,  or  still  higher  transit  duties,  and  may  effectually  bar  all 
intercourse  among  the  people  of  the  several  States.  That  it  should  have  been 
imposed  by  New  Jersej'^,  and  tamely  acquiesced  in  so  many  years  by  other 
States,  is  most  extraordinary. 

The  transit  duties  and  other  considerations  for  the  monopoly  granted  to  the 
companies,  yield  the  State  a  large  amount  of  annual  revenue.  *'  The  State 
of  New  Jersey,"  says  the  Directors'  address  of  1846,  (p.  15,)  "  without  ever 
having  paid  one  dollar,  has  derived  from  her  lessees  and  partners  in  this  mo- 
nopoly, two  thousand  shares  of  stock,  worth  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars ;  and  has  received  in  transit  duties  and  dividends  up  to  the 
first  of  January  last  (184(3),  five  hundred  and  thirty-one  thousand  two  hun- 
dred and  thirteen  dollars,"  which,  says  the  address,  (page  16),  "  is  derived 
almost  exclusivel//  from  strangers  and  jier sons  not  living  in  New  Jersey." 

From  January  1,  1846,  to  the  close  of  1851,  the  further  revenue  derived 
by  New  Jersey  from  these  sources,  by  her  official  documents,  appears  to  have 
amounted  to  $546,432,  55. 

In  their  address  of  March,  1846,  the  joint  board  declare  that  "  the  State's 
share  in  transit  duties,  and  dividends,  of  every  three  dollars,  net  money  re- 
ceived for  through  passengers,  is  sixty  cents."  It  is  obvious  that  without 
these  transit  duties,  and  without  this  monopoly,  in  which  the  State  is  also  a 
partner,  the  through  fares  might  be  reduced  twenty  per  cent.,  and  with  the 
same  result  to  the  companies. 

But  the  transit  duties  are  light  in  amount  compared  with  the  discriminating 
fares  and  freights  between  through  and  way  transportation. 

This  practical  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  citizens  of  their  own  State, 
rests  upon  undeniable  evidence.* 

The  address  of  the  joint  board  of  Directors  (signed  by  them  all)  June  11, 
1848,  at  A.,  page  27,  contains  a  "  Statement  of  the  business  of  the  Cam- 
"  den  and  Amboy  Railroad,  and  its  branches,  and  Philadelphia  and  Trenton 
"  Railroad,  for  the  month  of  May,  1848,  wherein  it  is  declared  that, — 


Address  of 
the  joint 
hoard  of  di- 
rectors to  the 
people  of  N. 
J.,  March, 
1846,  p.  15. 


Director's  ad. 
dress  1846, 
page  18. 


*  Note. — The  innocent  readiness  of  Jerseymen  to  tax  Pennsylvanians,  is  exempli- 
fied in  a  ludicrous  manner,  in  the  Prospectus  of  the  "Camden  and  Atlantic  Railroad," 
from  Camden  to  Absecom.  See  Engineer's  Report,  June  24, 1852.  At  p.  11,  an  esti- 
mate is  furnished  of 

82,000  passengers  [Jerseymen,  see  p.  9),  at  $1.  $32,000 

20,000  visiters  to  the  beach,  [Philadelphians,  p.  11),  at  $1.  50.  $30,000 

The  Engineer  says,  at  page  12,  the  work  "  appeals  in  the  strongest  terms  to  Phila- 
delphia and  her  business  men." 


DISCRIMINATIONS   AGAINST   STRANGERS.  18 

22,8661  throwjli  passengers  were  carried  at  the  average  charge  cts.  milla. 

,  per  mile,  of  three  cents,  5j  mills,  '6  b^ 
34,9'24^  icni/  passrjif/ers  were  carried  at  the  average  charge  per 

mile,  of  one  cent!  ^  mills,  1  7} 


Difference,  (more  than  double),  1.     8. 

In  the  State  Director's  Report  for  1849,  (published  in  1850,)  at  page  25, 
Statement  F.  appended,  it  is  stated  by  Edwin  A.  Stevens,  Superintendent, 
that  "  On  the  roads  of  the  United  Companies,  the  first  class  of  through  pas- 
"  sengers  average  3.31  cents  per  mile,  (^wai/  passengers  average  1.98  cents;) 
"  second  class  2.60  cents ;  and  third  class  1,66  cents  per  mile."  No  classi- 
fication of  way  fares  seems  to  be  made.  Mr.  Stevens  adds.  "  The  way  fares, 
"  between  places  where  there  is  a  large  local  business,  may  he  reduced  vjith 
"  advantage,  as  the  husiness  increases,  where  it  does  not  interfere  with  the 
"  thi'oiigh  fares." 

The  political  advantage  to  be  gained  is  easily  understood. 

On  freights  the  discrimination  was  still  greater.     For  the  transportation  of  „ 
merchandise  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  the  toll  charged  upon  the  p^j-t  i,  p.  b'A. 
Railroad,  to  the  Napoleon  line,  (who  exacted  of  shippers  oftentimes  enor-  Report  1850, 
mously  and  disproportionately  more)  up  to  1846  was  eight  cents  a  ton  per  appx.,  B.  (J. 
mile,  makint'  seven  dollars  and  sixty-four  cents  for  the  whole  distance.     But  ^-  '^}^°^^' 

.  son  )  t).  y« 

for  the  "  transportation  of  icay  merchandise  the  Railroad  Company  was  to  ^^  '„  "g  ' 
receive  just  one-half  of  the  above  stated  rates."     Since  1846  the  rates  have  Freeman', 
been  professedly  modified,  but  the  same  proportion  between  through  and  appx., ps.  126- 
way  freight  was  still  preserved.  ^' 

The  amount  thus  obtained  annually  from  "  persons  not  living  in  New 
Jersey  "  is  large.     There  were  in  1850,  three  hundred  and  forty-five  thou-  tor  A-eport" 
sand  four  hundred  and  twenty-five  through  passengers  ;  of  whom  one-half  for  1850.  p. 
probably  were  of  the  1st  class.     The  through  fares  (although  now  reduced  i*'^-  published 
from  the  illegal  charge  of  four  dollars  to  three,  upon  the  most  productive 
road  in  the  Union,  are  still  about  fifty  per  cent,  higher  than  the  rates  else- 
where for  similar  or  better  accommodation.     It  appears  by  the  report  of  J. 
C.  G.   Kennedy,  Esq.,  of  the   United   States  Census  Office,  Washington,  g^^  penn. 
March  1,  1852,  that,  "  In  New  England,  the  average  price  per  mile  for  the  inquirer, 
conveyance  of  passengers  is  under  two  cents  ;  from  New  York  to  Boston  it  ilrtrcli  17, 
is  two  and  four-tenths ;  from  New  York  to  Philadelphia  three  and  four- 
tenths." 

The  Hudson  River  Rail  Road,  (not  made  over  level  sand,  but  often  cut 
through  solid  rock,  and  built  on  causeways  in  the  river,)  made  at  vast  ex- 
pense, charges  for  fares  from  New  Y'ork  to  Albany,  150  miles,  81.50,  and 
the  running  time  is  four  hours.     Speed  37  i  miles  per  hour. 

The  New  Jersey  monopolies  for  about  88  or  90  miles*  distance,  occupy 
nearly  five  hours,  and  the  charge  is  noiv  three  dollars. 

Why  should  there  not  be  a  safe  double  track  of  railroad  between  Phila- 
delphia and  New  York  ;  through  trains  running  in  three  hours,  at  intervals 
of  two  ;  carrying,  comfortably,  a  thousand  passengers  a  day,  at  the  charge 
of  a  dollar,  or  a  dollar  and  a  half  ? 

ILLEGAL   FARES — FOUR   DOLLARS. 

The  "  consolidated  companies  "  charged  from  1835  to  1849  an  illegal 
addition  of  one  dollar  to  the  fare  of  the  through  passengers  by  their  princi- 
pal lines,  run  upon  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Kail  Road. 

The  act  of  15th  February,  1831,  supplementary  to  their  charter,  provides  : 

*  DiSTUBNELL  statcs  the  distances  thus : 

Jersey  City  Ferry  ...  1  mile. 

New  Jersey  Rail  Road,  -  -  -      30 

New  Brunswick  and  Trenton,       -  -  29 

Philadelphia  and  Trenton,  (26,  &  2.)  -      28 

88  miles. 


14  ILLEGAL    $4    FARES. 


Laws  K  J.  '*  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  said  companies  to  charge  more  than  three 

re-published     dollars  for  the  transportation  of  passengers  from  and  to  the  cities  of  New 
]8«,appx.,      York  and  Philadelphia." 

page  o  .  -^^  section  2,  of  the  act  of  March  2, 1832,  they  were  invested  with  the  ah- 

Ib.  p.  32.  solute  monn])oly  of  railroad  through  iranqjortation  ;  being,  by  the  act  of  1831, 

prohibited  from  charging  77iore  than  three  dollars  for  that  traiuportation. 

Neither  the  monopoly  nor  the  prohibition  are  confined   to  any  particular 

road. 

Yet  from  1835  to  1849,  they  charged  four  dollars  fare  on  the  lines  which 
■•loit  for  1849  they  ran  over  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  branch  of  their  roads;  and 
p.  6.  State  having  an  arrangement  that  two-thirds  of  their  through  passengers  should 
Director's  re-    j^g  transported  by  this  route,  the  number  of  those  that  paid  the  four  dollars 

port  for  ISjO,  ^  i  r  ^ 

pao-e  4.  Also,  must  have  been  very  great. 

Ile"port  1850.        This  arrangement  about  the  passengers  was  made  with   the  Philadelphia 

J.  Morrell,       ^^(j  Trenton  Rail  Road  and  with  the  New  Jersey  Rail  Road  Company,  who 

a-ppi--,  P-    a  •  j^j^^^g  became  agents  and  partners  with  the  monopolies.  The  date  of  the  first 

contract  is  not  given,  but  the  New  Jersey  Commissioners'  Report  of  1850, 

part  2,  p.  86,  states,  that  the  last  agreement  is  dated  x\pril  1,  18-13,  and  is 

still  in  force.  "  By  the  the  4th  article,  ^1  was  established  as  the  fare  for  first 

"  class  through  passengers,  and  §3  for  second  class ;"  (laborers  and  negro 

cars.)     The  commissioners  in  tLis  report  have  published  parts  only  of  this 

agreement.     No  doubt  the  icliole  would  have  been  interesting.     The  fact 

Report  1850,    that  two-thirds  of  the  travellers  were  to  be  compelled  to  take  this  line, 

part  2,  p.  80.    appears  by  so  much  of  the  IGth  article  as  the  New  Jersey  Commissioners 

have  given.     "  The  joint  companies  guarantee  that  not  less  than  two-thirds 

"  of  the  whole  aggregate  number  of  through   passen<;ers  by  both  routes, 

"  (that  is,  by  way  of  Amboy,  and  by  way  of  New  Brunswick,)  shall  be 

"  carried   by    the   lines   by    this   agreement   established,    by  way  of  New 

<'  Brunswick." 

The  manner  in  which  the  monopolies  contrived  to  comply  with  this  agree- 
ment, and  force  passengers  to  take  the  four  dollar  line,  by  the  Philadelphia 
and  Trenton  Rail  Road,  must  be  fresh  in  the  recollection  of  most  citizens 
of  New  York  and  Philadelphia. 

There  was,  to  be  sure,  a  pretended  compliance  with  the  law.  They 
charged  only  $3  on  the  Camden  and  Amboy  lines.  But  these  were  run  at 
unreasonable  hours,  in  inferior  cars,  with  bad  accommodations,  purposely 
inconvenient,  slow  and  dilatory,  and  there  were  other  annoyances.  Under 
such  compulsion  the  mass  of  travellers  adopted  the  four  dollar  route. 

There  can  be  little   doubt  that  if  their  formal  proposition  to  the  legisla- 

< lommit'tee.      ^ure  in  1836  had  been  successful,  to  advance  the  through  fares  by  day  to 

.Tan.  23, 1836,  four,  and  at  night  to  five  dollars,  in  which   offer  they  allege  (p.  19)  they 

p.  19,  p.  29.      u  iiave  done  all   that  the  most  rigid  patriotism  could  require,"  the  same 

system  would  have   been   put  in   operation  to  prevent   New  Yorkers  and 

Philadelphians  from  travelling  by  day.* 

In  all  the  "  State  Directors'  Reports"  published  from  1835  to  1850, 

the   number  of  passengers  who  paid  the  four  dollar  fares  is  carefully  sup- 

presssed.     The    three    dollar    fares  on   the    Camden  and  Amboy  lines  are 

ostentatiously  given.     In  the  Joint  Board  of  Directors'  Address,  June  11, 

1848,  at  page  27,  may  be  found  the  only  published  statement,  in  figures, 

Address  June  that  can  afford  any  basis  for  estimates.     It  is  there  avowed  that  for  the 

31,1848. p.2T.  mouth  of  May,  lb48,  O.OTOI  through   passengers   were   carried  at  upl.     If 

RL^porTlsso,"   ^^^^  iiionth  is  a  fair  average  of  the  rest  of  the  year,  for  which  no  statement 

part  2,  ps.  86-  has  been  published,  the  illegal  excess  for  the  year  1848  exceeded  8108,000  ; 

7-  and  for  the  thirteen  or  fourteen  years  must  have  been  between  one  and  two 

millions  of  dollars.     It  was  alleged  that  these  passengers  were  carried  ou 

*  The  long  dissatisfaction  of  the  public  with  their  treatment  upon  the  companies' 
roads  is  a  matter  that  does  not  admit  of  much  documentary  evidence.  Sometimes 
facts  are  published.  For  instance,  in  Niles'  Register,  May,  1835,  vol.  48,  p.  202, 
may  be  found  under  the  head  of  Live  Lumber,  a  tale  of  burnt  baggage,  told  by  the 
passengers. 


DEFAULTERS   TO   NEW   JERSEY.  15 

the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  lines,  and  not  upon  the  Camden  and  Amboy 
road. 

These  monstrous  profits  at  last  attracted  the  attention  of  the  State. 

By  joint  resolution  of  the  New  Jersey  Legislature,  March  10,  1842,  the 
provisions  of  which  were  accepted,  hy  agreement,  under  seal,  Oct.  3,  1842,  I''?,^,^"'^'^':'^" 
by  the  Presidents  and  secretaries  of  the  joint  board,  and  of  the  canal  and  p^  46, '47,  ' 
railroad  companies,  it  was  enacted,  and  agreed  that  "The  treasurer  of  this 
'*  State  shall  receive  and  collect  from  the  said  companies  the  one-half  of  any 
^'sum  over  three  dollars  they  may  charge  for  each  passenger  carried  on  any 
"  of  the  radroads  of  the  said  companies  to  and  from  the  cities  of  Netv  York 
"  and  Philadelphia,  in  addition  to  the  transit  duties  before  mentioned,"  kc. 

Under  this  law,  and  sealed  agreement,  the  State  of  New  Jersey  has  never 
received  one  dollar  of  the  tax  thus  specifically  imposed. 

The  pretext  upon  which  it  has  been  avoided, — that  the  four  dollar  pas- 
sengers were  not  carried  entirely  "  on  the  railroads  of  the  said  companies," 
but  partly  upon  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road,  will  hardly  avail,  jjereinafter 
It  will  be  seen  hereafter  they  object  to  pay  the  tax  to  Pennsylvania,  because  at  p.  25. 
the  money  was  not  earned  upon  this  road,  but  by  the  other  companies.  But, 
if  the  transportation  were  on  "  any  of  the  radroads  of  the  said  companies," 
(for  instance,  the  branch  road  from  Trenton  to  New  Brunswick,)  it  was 
enough.  They  owned  three  roads,  the  Camden  and  Amboy,  the  Branch  Road, 
and  substantially  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton.  Was  it  intended  to  use 
words  that  had  no  meaning? 

There  neither  was,  nor  ever  will  be,  a  continuous  road  from  Philadelphia  Report  1850, 
to  New  York.     The  Hudson  is  to  be  crossed.  Report  of ^'''' 

The  word  entirely  is  neither  in  the  law,  nor  in  the  bond.    The  companies  Committee 
held  the  monopoly  of  through  transportation.     The  New  Jersey  Rail  Road  to  Stockhold- 
Company  was  their  agent  and  j^artner,  by  express  agreement,  lending  their  i^3g^^"\l 
road  and  conveyances  for  this  through  transportation.     The  Philadelphia  17.  23.  27.  29. 
and  Trenton  Road  virtually  belonged  to  them;  insomuch  that  in  183G  they  Directors' Re- 
absolutely  offered  to  sell  this  Pennsylvania  Road  to  the  State  of  New  Jersey.  P"""'  ^^^^'  P- 
It  was  not  merely  their  stock,  or  the  control,  but  the  road  itself  thai  was  statement  by 
offered.     In  theii;  official  reports,    1836  and    1840,    this  road  is  ranked  E.  A.  Steven's, 
among  their  "  appendages."     The  same  engines  and  cars  were  run  through,  "^'^n^a^  "ix' 
These  chiefly  belonged  to  the  monopolies  and  bore  their  name.  p]  lis'.''^^^^  ' 

Every  elementary  principle  of  legal   construction    applicable  either  to 
deeds  or  statutes  di-scountenances  the  evasion.     Yv'ords  must   have  meaning  Blackstone, 
and  effect.    Intention  must  govern.    Nothing  can  favor  the  avoidance  of  the  vols.  1  and  2. 
impost  but  a  miserable  perversion,  which  would  be  wholly  unsuccessful  in 
any  honest  court  of  justice. 

From  March  1842  to  late  in  1849,  seven  years  and  some  months,  the  mono- 
polists were  legally  bound  to  share  with  the  state  "  one  half  of  any  sum  over 
three  dollars  they  might  charge"  for  through  transportation.     At  the  rate  .^    ^^ 

of  6108,000  per  annum,  for  7J  years,  it  would  amount  to  $792,000.  drc7s  oTi84.'', 

One  half  of  which,  due  to  the  State,  would  be  390,000.  Statement  A. 

And,  interest  thereupon,  averaging  say  from  1846 — six  years, 

would  be  142,560. 


5538,560. 

The  State  of  New  Jersey,  in  her  legislative,  judicial  and  executive 
departments,  and  in  her  congressional  representation,  being  now  politically 
reduced  to  a  condition  of  helpless  dependency  upon  the  monopolists,  must 
be  disenthralled  before  this  debt  can  be  collected.  Now  that  it  is  exposed 
to  public  notice,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  the  defaulters  should  procure 
some  determination  or  settlement  upon  their  own  terms,  or  a  release  of  the 
claim  for  some  trivial  consideration. 


16  THE   NAPOLEON   LINE. 


The  Napoleon  Line. 

Keport  is.-io,        In  the  history  of  these  monopolies,  perhaps  nothing  is  more  remarkable 
part  2,  p.  91.    ^.j^^n  their  connexion  with  the  "  New  Brunswick  steamboat  and  canal  trans- 
portation company." 
Bill  in  chaa-        This  New  Brunswick   company,  better  known   as  the  "  Napoleon  line," 
-•ery,  J.  D.       was  chartered  by  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey,  in  January,  1831.     The 
Hagar  vs.  E.    original  capital  paid  was  §25,000,  in  200  shares  of  $125  each.     John  D. 
•il' Marcr25!  Hagar,  Sec'retary,  states  in  substance,  it  was  established  for  the  transporta- 
isVr.        "  '  tion  of  passengers  and  freight  between  New  Brunswick  and  New  York. 
Answer  to"  do.  Q^jjgy  commenced  with  one  steamboat.     In  a  few  months,  when  it  had  been 
found  to  be  a  profitable  enterprise,  "  intimations  were  given  out  that  the 
"  new  company  must  prepare  for  a  severe  opposition,  with  a  reduction  of  fare 
"  to  a  nominal  sum,  by  the  boats  of  the  "  Union  line,"  owned  by  Edwin  A. 
"  Stevens  and  associates.     Accompanied  with  these  threats,  came  overtures 
'<  for  the  purchase  of  a  majority  of  the  stock  of  the  company.     In  consider- 
"ation  of  its  feeble  finances,  the  proposition  for  purchase  was  acceded  to, 
"  and  transfers  of  a  majority  of  the  stock  were  accordingly  made  to  Edwin  A. 
"Stevens,  and  others;  and  in  May,  1831,  a  new  Board  of  Directors  was 
"chosen." 
.;.  D.  Hagar's       "  The  business  increased  from  year  to  year.  Dividends  of  thirty  and  forty 
pamphlet,        a  pgj.  ^gnt.  were  declared  and  paid.     In  1834  an  increase  of  the  capital  was 
.Jan.  13,  1848,  ^^  proposed  by  Mr.  Stevens  for  a  canal  transportation  business.     Of  the  new 
"stock  thus  created  (says  BIr.  Hagar)  "31essrs.  Stevens   and  company  mo- 
"destly  took  the  whole." 
Report  ISon,        The  N.  J.  Commissioners'  Report  of  1850,  says,  "other  persons'.interested 
pan  2,  ps.  91-  in  the  joint  companies  became  afterwards  owners  of  part  of  the  said  majority 
^-  of  stock,  and  it  appears  to  have  been  under  tlie  control  of  persons  who  were 

directors  of  both  those  companies  from  1835  to  the  present  time." 
The  Stockholders  of  the  Napoleon  Company  were  as  follows. 

Shares.  Shares. 

R.  L.  &  E.  A.  Stevens,  50     TTra.  Cook,  -4 

Robert  F.  Stockton,  22     A.  S.  Nielson,         .  4 

J.  Potter,  20     Alfred  Decker,  2 

Jas.  Nielson,  12     J.  Lefevre,  (U.  L.)  2 

W.  J.  Watson,  (U.  L.)  10     A.  Jenkins,  (U.  L.)  2 

J.  Bishop,  8     Geo.  Abbe,  (U.  L.)  2 

10     John  D.  Hagar,  8     M.  C.  Jenkins,  (U.  L.)  2 

Isaac  Fisher,  7     J.  D.  Hoagland,  2 

Lawrence  Fisher,  6     Ira  Bliss,  1 

Miles  C.  Smith,  7     J.  Hatfield,  1 

Benj'n  Fish,  (U.  L.)  6     Wm.  Gulick,  (U.  L.)  1 

John  R.  Thomson,  5     J.  McKnight,  (C.  L.)  1 

J.  H.  Dulles,  (U.  L.)  5     Geo.  Richmond,  1 

John  C.  Stevens,  4     F.  Richmond,  1 

Philip  Kipp,  4     Wm.  McKnight,  (C.  L.)  1 

The  above  list  is  extracted  from  J.  D.  Ilagar's  Bill  in  chancery,  sworn  to 
March  25th,  1847. 

Edwin  A.  Stevens,  in  his  answer,  sworn  to  April  16th,  1847,  (p.  7.)  ad- 
mits it  to  be  correct,  and  that  with  the  exception  of  Philip  Kipp  and  others 
of  the  Citizens  and  Union  line,  all  the  rest  were  connected  with  the  Joint 
Companies. 

Of  this  association  Miles  C  Smith  was  President,  A.  S.  Nielson,  Trea- 
surer, and  John  D.  Hagar,  originally  Secretary. 

The  directors  of  the  consolidated  companies,  authorized  one  of  their  num- 
ber, Mr.  Stevens,  "to  consummate  an  arrangement  with  the  New  Bruns- 
wick steamboat  company  for  the  transportation  of  merchandise  over  the 
Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  "  (Hagar's  bill  vs.  Stevens  et  al  and  an- 
swer 1847)  ;  and  the  same  Mr.  Stevens  being  the  representative  of  the  New 


INCREASING   CHARGES. — AVOIDING   RESPONSIBILITY.  17 


Brunswick  company,  tbe  arrangement  was  consummated  on  terms  mutually 
satisfactory.  It  took  effect  Jan.  1,  1835.  Of  those  terms,  as  given  in  the 
legislative  investigation  of  1850,  some  of  the  most  pertinent  are  here  ex- 
tracted : 

The  railroad  company  was  to  furnish  all  the  necessary  facilities,  such  as  Report  of 
cars,  enn-ines,  fuel,  and  firemen;  and  the  New  Brunswick  company  was  not  ]SaO,  pan  1, 
required  to  embark  any  capital  in  the  business.     "The  latter  company  was  !'•  ^^• 
to  pay  the  former  seven  dollars  and  sixty-four  cents  a  ton  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  merchandise   between  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  being   at  the  appx^.!^p.  127. 
rate  of  eight  cents  a   ton  per  mile,  and  for  the  transportation  of  way  mer- 
chandise, just  one-half  of  the  above  stated  rates." 

"'J he  basis  of  this  arrangement,"  says  the  legislative  investigation,  "was  Report  ^,f 
evidently  the  highest  rate  allowed  by  the  charter  to  be  charged  for  tolls  and  ]850,  part  2. 
transportation.  The  joint  companies  received  the  full  amount  named  in  their  P-  ^^• 
charter  without  deductions  for  the  expenses  of  the  receipt  or  delivery  of  See  also  part 
goods,  or  for  the  losses  and  damages  incident  to  the  business;  and  they  also     '  ^''    "  . 
appear  to  have  considered  that  they  were  relieved  from  the  legal  obligations  vcstigation' 
which  would  have  attached  to  them  as  common  carriers."   "  Under  this  con-  1818,  ps.  5U, 
tract  the  New  Brunswick  company  forwarded  all  the  merchandise  carried  51,  and  52^ by 
over  the  railroad  from  January  1st,  1835,  to  April  1st,  18-lG,  and  charged  ^Xni'-Pen-' 
shippers  various  prices,  generally  exceeding  seven  dollars  and  sixty-four  cents  nington,  and 
per  ton,  for  the  through  freight.  It  is  therefore  obvious  that  the  New  Bruns-  •-'•  l^«rke, 
wick  company  must  have  received  much  more  for  the  transportation  of  mer- 
chandise than  eight  cents  per  ton  per  mile  (the  legal  rate).   What  the  whole  p^g     .j  ^g^o 
amount  of  that  excess  has  been,  or  what  disposition  has  been  made  of  it,  we  part  2,  p.  94. 
(the  commissioners)  have  not  inquired,  nor  have  we  deemed  it  our  duty  to 
inquire." 

The  motive  for  the  arrangement  between  the  companies  is  thus  explained  ib.  appx., 

by  Wm.  H.  Gatzmer  in  his  evidence  on  oath  before  the  committee  of  in-  125-0. 

vestigation.     This  explanation   is  more   positively  corroborated  by  J.  R.  x^ompsonV 

Thompson,  the  secretary  of  the  joint  board.  evidence,  re- 

"  I  think  it  very  likely  that  the  joint  companies  also  have  left  the  trans-  port  1850,  p. 

portation  on  the  railroad  to  be  done  by  the  Napoleon  company,  from  the  ^gp Jt^iglo.' 

idea  that   the  Napoleon  company  were  not  limited  hy  any  restrictions  as  to  pa,-t  i,  ps.  " 

the  rate  of  charges  for  freight  or  otherwise,  and  that  the  railroad  company  52-3. 

was  entitled  to  charge  them  the  full  amount  of  tolls  expressed  in  the  char-  ,^g*g''to^r*fre^'" 

ter,  without  expense  to   themselves.     They  also   deemed  it  important  to  portofisjs 

themselves  to  be  free  from  the  liability  of  common  carriers,  the  whole  re-  for  l8-t7,  p. 

sponsibility  of  which,  it  was  supposed  by  this  arrangement,  was  borne  by  ^^^^  ^^^  ^g^^ 

the  Napoleon  company."  p.  17. 

Mr.  John  R.  Thompson,  Secretary  of  the  Joint  Board  in  his  testimony  Also  for  1849, 

states  openly.  ^'     '.-.Q^n. 

r^    ^        ■      ■      ■,  .  /.    ,  .,        -1  c         T         •  I  •        xi      1       •      Report  1850, 

"  One  prmcipal  motive  of  the  railroad  company  tor  relinquishing  the  busi-   p^rt  1,  p.  54, 

"  ness  of  transportation  on  the  road,  and  turning  it  over  to  the  New  Bruns- 

"  wick  company  was  to  avoid  the  responsibility  for  losses  and  damages  which 

"  the  situation  of  common  carriers  necessarily  incurs."     "  App.  to  Keport, 

1850,  p.  13. — Again,  at  p.  17,  he  says,  "  It  was  thought  extremely  impru- 

"  dent  on  the  part  of  the  joint  companies  to  incur"  (among  other  things) 

"the  responsibility  of  carriers." 

The  commissioners,  Robertson,  Hulme  and  Wurts  (in  their  Report 
1850,  part  1.  p.  53.)  state  these  facts,  and  add  "  We  do  not  consider  it 
"  within  our  province  to  express  any  opinion  with  respect  to  the  policy,  pro- 
"  priety,  or  legality  of  the  arrangement." 

They  might  have  used  stronger  language,  but  they  say  in  general  conclu- 
sion upon  the  whole  investigation,  (part  2,  p.  100.)  "  Our  leading  object 
"  was  to  present  the  facts  truly,  without  color  or  disguise,  rather  than  to 
"  draw  conclusions  from  them." 

Thus  from  1835  to  1846,  under  an  agreement  made  by  the  directors  of  the 
consolidated  companies  virtually  with  themselves,  the  restrictions  on  freight, 
imposed  by  their  charters,  were  evaded. 


18 


CLOSE    CORPORATION. — PROFITS. — PROSECUTION, 


Answer  in 
chancery  Apr. 
16,  1847,  p. 
25, 

Report  1850, 
pavt  2,  p.  9-4. 


II  ii  gar's  evi- 
dence, report 
1850,  appx., 
172. 


llag.ar's 
])»mphlet 
-Jan.  13,  184S, 
p.  8. 

Eill  in  ehan- 
oery  N.  J., 
Hagar  vs. 
Stevens  et  al., 
March  25, 
1847. 

.1.  D.  Hagar 
vs.  Stevens, 
Neilson  & 
Thompson  ; 
2d  bill  in 
chancery,  Oct. 
1,  1850. 


Sept.  1852. 


The  amount  of  the  "excess"  (as  the  report  of  1850  terms  it)  charged 
over  the  legal  freights,  may  be  imagined  from  the  enormous  amount  of  mer- 
chandise transported  by  the  Napoleon  company,  which,  prior  to  the  year 
1846,  sometimes  (say  Messrs.  Stevens,  Neilson,  and  Thompson)  "■  exceeded 
one  hundred  millions  in  value  in  a  single  year."  On  most  of  which,  from 
January  1,  1835,  to  April  1,  1846,  the  New  Brunswick  company  charged 
shippers  various  prices,  by  the  railroad,  generally  exceeding  seven  dollars 
and  sixty-four  cents  per  ton  for  through  freight. 

The  office  of  common  carriers  being  thus  thrown  upon  the  Napoleon  Line, 
which  was  chiefly  owned  by  and  composed  of  the  officers  of  the  monopolies, 
it  will  appear  hereafter  how  they  effected  their  double  purpose  of  increasing 
charges  and  evading  responsibility. 

The  management  of  the  Napoleon  company  seems  to  have  been  chiefly  in 
the  hands  of  Mr.  E.  A.  Stevens.  "  We,"  says  Mr.  J.  D.  Hagar,  speaking 
(under  oath)  of  himself  and  several  of  the  stockholders,  "  made  application 
to  Mr.  Stevens  for  an  expose  of  the  affairs  of  the  company ;  and  he  replied 
that  it  could  not  be  done  ;  that  the  books  could  not  be  exhibited ;  that  was 
his  way  of  doing  business;  he  managed  the  company  as  a  close  corporation." 
And  Mr.  Stevens,  in  his  answer  in  chancery,  swears,  (page  31)  "  it  was  im- 
portant to  the  interests  of  the  stockholders  that  the  business  and  profits 
should  not  be  made  public." 

No  full  meetings  of  the  stockholders  (says  Mr.  Hagar)  were  held  between 
1838  and  1847.  Even  the  president  of  the  company  and  the  treasurer 
were  not  acquainted  with  its  business. 

Mr.  Hagar  had  been  accustomed  to  dividends  of  forty  per  cent,  and  now 
receiving  onli/  sixteen,  he  naturally  became  dissatisfied.  He  instituted  pro- 
ceedings in  Chancery  against  Edwin  A.  Stevens,  John  R.  Thomson  and 
James  Neilson,  Directors,  alleging  violations  of  trust,  and  demanding  an 
account. 

To  settle  this  chancery  suit,  an  account  in  January,  1848,  was  stated  on 
behalf  of  the  company,  and  each  share  of  the  stock  was  estimated  to  be  worth 
$1,455  97.  This  amount  per  share  was  actually  paid  to  Mr.  Hagar  for  the 
shares  held  by  him. 

Current  dividends  had  been  made  from  1831  to  1847,  for  the  first  four 
years  of  forty  per  cent,  per  annum,  and  afterwards  of  sixteen  per  cent,  per 
annum.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  these  profits  and  this  accumulation 
were  under  estimated,  if  an  opinion  can  be  formed  from  the  subsequent  pro- 
ceedings, at  the  suit  of  Mr.  Hagar  against  the  same  defendants. 

In  consequence  of  the  publication  of  facts  in  the  New  Jersey  Commis- 
sioners' Report  of  1850,  and  the  testimony  of  the  officers,  clerks  and  agents 
of  the  companies,  which  Mr.  Hagar  alleges  to  be  diff"erent  from  the  repre- 
sentations made  to  him  at  the  time  of  the  settlement  in  1848,  he  brought  a 
second  Bill  in  Chancery  in  October,  1850,  against  the  same  defendants  for 
further  account. 

It  would  occupy  too  much  space  to  state  the  particular  charges  in  the 
plaintiff's  bill.  It  is  sworn  to,  Oct.  1,  1850,  by  Mr.  Hagar,  that  "  he  be- 
lieves them  to  be  true."  The  specific  items  of  alleged  overcharge  of  expen- 
ditures and  under-statement  of  receipts  amount  to  nearly  a  million  of  dollars, 
and  the  other  general  charges  amount  to  about  a  million  and  a  quarter  ad- 
ditional, of  the  whole  of  which  the  plaintiff  demanded  his  share.  No  answer 
to  this  Bill  was  filed  by  the  defendants.  In  1852,  Mr.  Hagar  discon- 
tinued his  proceedings  before  the  State  Tribunal,  and  recommenced  his 
action  by  bill  in  equity  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States. 

This  third  bill  in  chancery  relates  to  much  the  same  subjects  as  the  pre- 
ceding one,  and  the  particular  charges  amount  to  more  than  two  and  a  quarter 
millions  of  dollars.  At  the  present  date,  no  answer  to  this  third  bill  has 
been  filed.     It  is  therefore  only  just  to  add  (in  the  absence  of  explanation 

The  New  Jersey  elections  of  1851  gave  the  friends  of  the  monopolists  the  con- 
trol of  the  State  in  her  Executive  and  Legislative  departments,  with  the  Judicial  and 
Congressional  appointments  and  delegation. 


AVOIDING   LIABILITY. — INCREASING   CHARGES. 


19 


and  28. 


from  the  defendants)  that  no  safe  opinion  can  be  formed  of  the  correctness 
of  any  of  the  accusations  and  charges  thus  specifically  made.  But  the  whole 
proceedings  suflBciently  indicate  extraordinary  profits  by  the  Napoleon  line, 
upon  a  capital  of  only  850,000  :  and  their  expenditures  and  receipts  in  the 
business  of  transportation  certainly  extended  to  many  millions. 

Avoiding  Responsibility. 

The    transportation    business  of  the  consolidated  companies   being  thus 
farmed  out  to  the  "  New  Brunswick  company,"   the  latter  company  itself 
operated  through  subordinate  unincorporated  nominal  companies.  The  Union    «  Fictitious ' 
transportation  line — The  Merchants'  line — The  Swift  sure  line,  kc,  in  whose    Hagar's  bill, 
names  the  bills  of  lading  for  merchandise  received  on  freight  were  ordinarily   P- ^l- 
given,  and  on  whom  the  responsibility  (such  as  it  was)  as  common  carriers   name."    An? 
was  ultimately  thrown.     The  motives  for  this  extraordinary  proceeding  and    wer,  p.  13, 
the  facts  are  placed,  h//  the  oaths  of  the 2^arties  themselves,  beyond  all  contro- 
versy.    The  abuses  that  followed  are  remembered  by  many  to  their  cost.* 

In  the  years  1847,  '48  and  '49,  very  many  legal  prosecutions  for  penalties 
were  instituted  against  the  companies  for  taking  illegal  tolls,  all  of  them  with- 
out substantial  result.  Peter  Briggs'  case  was  commenced  inApril,  1847,  and 
judgment  being  obtained  against  the  companies,  they  took  the  ease  to  the  State 
Siq)reme  Court,  where,  in  1848,  the  judgment  was  affirmed.  The  monopo- 
lists then  carried  the  cause  to  the  Court  of  Errors  and  Apj^eals.  In  Octo- 
ber, 1850,  this  Court  affirmed  the  judgment,  and  the  defendants  took  the 
case  to  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  where  it  has  not 
been  determined.  The  charge  of  S7.64  toll  per  ton  for  through  transporta- 
tion being  decided  by  the  State  Courts  to  be  illegal,  the  excess  §2.76,  was 
partially  discontinued  in  1849. 

It  has  been  alleged  on  behalf  of  the  companies  that  they  have  refunded 
upwards  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  of  these  overcharges. 

The  New  .Jersey  State  directors,  Messrs.  Milnor  and  Arrowsmitb,  in  their 
Report  for  1851,  dated  .January  20th,  1852,  at  page  1,  say,  "  The  standing 
^^ policy  which  they  (the  companies)  have  pursued,  of  cheapening  and  facili- 
"  tating  the  transit  of  passengers  and  merchandise  upon  their  works,  has 
"been  steadily  maintained." 

Perhaps  by  way  of  '  gilding  refined  gold,  and  adding  a  perfume  to  this 
violet,'  the  monopolists  procured  the  passage  of  an  Act  "  relative  to  freights 
and  transit  duties  on  railroads  in  this  State,"  approved  March  24th, 
1852,  which  covertly  repeals  the  law  determined  in  Briggs'  case,  and  autho- 
rizes the  companies  to  charge  on  any  railroad  within  the  State,  "  and  on  the 
routes  continuous  therewith  to  the  termination  thereof,"  by  measurement 
ton,  the  very  amount  decided  to  be  illegal. 

On  the  1st  April,  1846,  the  agreement  between  the  Napoleon  line  and 
the  Joint  Companies  was  terminated  for  the  reason  alleged  by  Messrs.  Ste- 
vens, Thomson  and  Nielson,  that  the  compensation  allowed  to  the  Napoleon 
line  "  amounted  to  not  more  than  an  insurance  on  the  property  carried  by 
"us,  say  $1  for  every  834,000  value,  and  for  which  we  have  been  respon- 
"sible." 

The  New  Jersey  State  Directors'  Report  for  1847,  page  12,  says,  "  the 
"  directors  of  the  Napoleon  Company  declined  to  transport  the  merchandise 
"  for  the  Canal  and  Railroad  Companies  for  the  compensation  they  were 
"  receiving,  alleging,  that,  although  the  profits  had  yielded  good  dividends, 
"they  were,  for  about  83000  a  year,  incurring  responsibilities  as  common 
"carriers  for  more  than  6100,000,000  in  value  of  goods  annually.  This 
"  they  represented  as  wholly  inadequate  to  the  risk." 

Mr.  John  D.  Hagar,  Ex-Secretary,   publishes  another  story.     He  says  : 


Answer  in 
chancery,  p. 


*  One  instance  may  be  given.  In  1841,  the  barge  Albany  was  negligently  upset 
in  the  harbor  of  New  York.  The  monopolists  declined  to  acknowledge  the  owner- 
ship of  the  line.  The  injured  parties  were  long  without  redress.  At  last  they  found 
a  defendant  and  obtained  a  verdict,  which  is  still  resisted  and  contested  in  the  court 
of  last  resort. 


20 


AVOIDING    RESPONSIBILITY. 


Answer  in 
chancery, 
April  16,"  1847, 
p.  27. 


Stevens'  an- 
swer in  chan- 
cery, April  16, 
1847,  p.  28. 


Datad  Jan. 
12,  1348. 


Dated  Jan. 
19,  1849. 


Dated  Jan. 
19,  1850. 


Charter  of 
the  Phila.  and 
N.  Y.  Steam 
Trans,  co. 
March  8, 
1850. 

Penna.  laws, 
p.  140  and 
141. 

See  State  Di- 
rectors' re- 
port of  1847- 
8,  free  list,  ps. 
29  and  30. 


Inveatigation 
1848. 
Report  1850. 


"At  a  meeting  of  the  stockholders  of  the  Napoleon  Company,  March,  1846, 
held  to  dissolve  the  connexion,  Mr.  Miles  C.  Smith  refused  to  jJi'esicIe.  Mr. 
J.  Neilson  took  the  Chair.  Mr.  Stevens  stated  that  the  compensation 
received  by  the  Company  was  insufficient — but,"  says  Mr.  Hagar,  "  it  is 
"  more  than  probable  that  the  cause  assigned  by  John  R.  Thomson,  Esq., 
"to  Mr.  Smith,  was  in  fact  the  real  cause,  viz.,  that  the  foreign  stock- 
"  holders  of  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  Company  made  loud  objec- 
"  tions  that  the  large  earnings  of  the  transportation  line  were  given  to  the 
"  Napoleon  Company."  [Hagar's  "Narrative  of  the  Organization  of  the 
Napoleon  Company,  &c."  Febry.  1850,  p.  9.] 

In  1846  the  agreement  being  dissolved,  for  a  short  time  the  Railroad  Com- 
pany themselves  carried  on  the  whole  transportation  business  across  the  road. 

Messrs.  Stevens,  Thomson  and  Neilson  swear,  in  their  answer  in  Chan- 
cery, April  16,  1847,  p.  28,  "The  Union  Transportation  Line  is  the 
"  name  under  which  the  freighting  business  has  been  conducted  on  the  said 
"railroad  by  the  said  Company." 

The  "  responsibility"  being  now  upon  the  right  parties,  the  State  Direc- 
tors of  the  monopolies  took  the  alarm,  and  it  is  interesting/  to  find  them 
quite  as  anxious  as  the  Napoleon  line,  to  get  rid  of  it. 

In  their  Report  for  1847,  page  18,  Mes.srs.  Irick  &  Chetwood,  State  Di- 
rectors, say  : 

"  In  looking  at  the  large  interest  of  the  State  as  a  stockholder  in  these 
"  Companies,  and  in  the  accruing  transit  duties,  and  the  immense  hazard 
"which  is  run  by  the  Companies  in  the  millions  in  value  of  merchandise 
"  transported  by  them  as  common  carriers,  it  has  occurred  to  the  State  Di- 
"  rectors  that  some  provision  ought  by  law  to  be  made  to  guard  as  far  as 
"  possible  against  the  consequences  of  a  heavy  loss  and  liability.  It  is 
"  stated  that  silks,  laces,  and  other  fine  goods,  to  the  amount  of  more  than 
"  half  a  million  of  dollars,  have  been  transported  in  one  of  the  steamboats  of 
"  the  Companies  in  a  single  trip. 

"  In  case  of  destruction  of  the  said  goods  by  fire  or  otherwise,  for  which 
"  the  Companies  should  be  held  liable,  the  loss  to  the  State  and  to  the  Stock- 
"  holders  would  be  severely  felt ;  and  it  is  worthy  the  consideration  of  the 
"Legislature,  whether  some  measures  should  not  he  adopted  for  the  protection 
"  of  the  parties.^' 

There  is  here  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  interests  of  the  owners  of  the 
goods.     They  were  "  strangers,  and  persons  not  living  in  New  Jersey." 

In  the  Report  to  the  Legislature  by  the  same  State  Directors  for  1848, 
(page  17,)  they  renew  the  suggestion,  and  make  some  lame  excuses,  and 
some  suggestions  about  protecting  ih.^  2)ubUc  also." 

In  their  Report  for  1849,  the  same  officers  say,  (p.  15,)  "  The  New 
"  Brunswick  Steamboat  and  Canal  Transportation  Company,  (known  as  the 
"  Napoleon  Company)  has  ceased  to  have  any  connexion  with  the  United 
"  Companies,  by  a  sale  and  transfer  of  all  its  boats  and  interest  to  indi- 
"  viduals  who  are  in  no  way  interested  in  the  Joint  Companies." 

Any  body  who  desires  to  know  how  this  thing  was  accomplished  may 
refer  to  the  Charter  of  "  The  Philadelphia  and  New  York  Steam  Trans- 
portation Company,"  incorporated  by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  March 
8th,  1850. 

It  will  be  interesting  to  observe  the  names  of  the  corporators,  and  then 
to  refer  to  the  extensive  "  free  list"  of  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad 
Company,  published  in  the  State  Directors'  Report  for  1847,  pages  29  &  30, 
whereby  it  will  appear  that  these  gentlemen  were  all  of  them,  clerks  or 
agents  of  the  joint  monopolies. 

The  State  of  New  Jersey  herself,  has  not  altogether  been  satisfied  with 
the  monopolies  erected  under  her  own  laws.  Two  several  legislative  investi- 
gations have  been  made.  But  the  power  and  influence  of  the  consolidated 
companies  in  New  Jersey  is  beyond  domestic  control.  The  investigations 
resulted  in  a  development  of  facts,  but  not  in  an  arrest  of  the  injustice  done 
to  citizens  of  Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  of  the  United  States. 


NEW   JERSEY   COMMISSIONERS'    REPORTS.  21 

In  the  Investigation  of  1818,  at  page  21,  the  Commissi«(ners,  Messrs.    investigation 
King,  Pennington  and  Parker,  say  :  °f  ^'"^  d%r* 

'<  It  is  here  to  be  observed,  that  the  question   of  the   expediency  of  the        ^"       ' 
"  grants  by  the  Legislature  to  the  New  Jersey  Companies  of  an  exclusive 
"  privilege  of  railroad  transportation  across  the  State,  or  of  any  other  ex- 
"  elusive  privileges,  has  not  been  suhmitted  to  us,  and  we  therefore  offer  no 
^^  opinion  in  regard  to  it." 

Again,  the  same  gentlemen  say,  at  page  6G  : 

"  It  may  be  here  remarked,  that  the  Companies  are  stated  to  have  charged 
^^  higher  rates  of  FARE  and  freight  on  the  railroad  than  by  law  they  are 
entitled  to." 

"  This  is  a  subject  not  committed  to  us,  and  we  THEREFORE  HAVE  NOT 

"  CONSIDERED  IT,  AND  CAN  GIVE  NO  OPINION  UPON  IT." 

The  Commissioners,  Robertson,  Hulme  and  WuRTS,  in  their  Report  of  Report  1850. 
1850,  significantly  declined  the  expression' of  any  opinion  about  the  arrange-   Part  1.  P-  ^^• 
ment  with  the  Napoleon  line,  except  to  condemn  the  system  of  special  con-   g^^  ireVeiube- 
tracts.    And  in  final  conclusion,  (p.  100,)  declare  that  their  "leading  object   fore,  p.  17. 
"  was,  to  present  the  facts,  truly,  without  color  or  disguise,  rather  than  to 
"  draw  conclusions  from  them."     The  public  are  under  some  obligations  to 
these  gentlemen  for  the  facts,  and  are  able  to  draw  their  own  conclusions. 

In  New  Jersey,  however,  the  dissatisfaction  with  the  monopoly  has  been 
such  that  the  companies  have  been  forced  to  excuse  their  privileges.  This 
has  been  done  by  appealing  to  State  pride  and  State  interest. 

"These  (say  they  in  their  address  of  1848,  speaking  of  their  charters)    Address  June 
these  are  the  statutes  of  a  sovereign  State— we  are  her  citizens — she  knows    ^^'^^^^^^^*  P^'  ^ 
how  to  preserve  her  laws  inviolate.     She  never  falters  in  her  duty  to  her 
sons."     And  in  their  address  of  1846,  they  reproach  "a  strong  disposition 
"  on  the  part  of  many  of  our  own  citizens  (of  New  Jersey)  to  embarass  the 
"operations  of  their  oicn  agents  and  partners,  and  to  abate  rather  than  in- 
"  crease  their  prosperity.     This  might  be  understood,  if  the  receipts  of  the   joint  board  of 
"  companies  were  derived  from  their  own  citizens,  or  were  regarded  as  taxes   ^'.'"''"^Yslg^*^' 
"  upon  them.     But  they  are  derived  almost  exclusively  from  strangers,  and    ^^^^^         '  ^' 
"  persons  not  living  in  New  Jersey." 

This  tone  seems  to  infect  the  State  functionaries  themselves.  "New  Report  for 
Jersey"  (say  the  State  Directors  in  their  report,  Jan.  12,  1848)  "  may  1847,  p.  17. 
"  well  be  proud  of  her  position.  While  other  States,  in  carrying  out  their 
".sytems  of  internal  improvements,  have  been  embarrassed,  and  in  many 
"  instances  driven  to  repudiation,  she,  without  incurring  the  responsibility 
"  of  a  single  dollar,  has  abundant  means  for  all  present  purposes."  How 
ftvr  this  peculiar  style  of  defence  should  recommend  these  consolidated  mono- 
polies to  the  favorable  consideration  of  the  people  and  the  Legislature  of 
Pennsylvania,  need  not  now  be  enlarged  upon. 

Pennsylvania,  too  liberal,  was  once  reduced  to  temporary  embarrass- 
ment, but  never  to  repudiation.  She  is  not  supported  by  taxes  upon  her 
neighbors. 

The  citizens  of  Philadelphia  have  frequently  complained  of  the  illegal 
burdens  on  their  intercourse  with  New  York.  In  the  year  1848,  a  strong 
memorial  to  Congress,  of  her  merchants  and  business  men,  a.sked  the  inter- 
position of  the  National  Government. 

The  memorialists  recited  some  of  the  grievances  mentioned  in  these  pages, 
and  declaring  that  they  saw  no  prospect  of  relief  from  any  action  within  the 
State  of  New  Jersey,  they  prayed  for  a  national  survey  of  a  Post  Road 
between  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  to  be  retained  under  the  control  of 
the  United  States,  and  used  for  the  construction  of  a  rail  road.  Many 
reasons  were  urged  in  favor  of  the  work. 

This  document  was  adopted  by  a  Committee  (appointed  at  a  meeting  held 
at  the  ofBce  of  the  Board  of  Trade)  consisting  of  the  following  gentlemen  : 


22  MEMORIAL   TO   CONGRESS. 


Thomas  C.  Rockhill,  William  D.  Lewis, 

Hulings  Cowperthwaite,  Abraham  Hart, 

Joseph  E,.  Evans,  George  Rundle, 

Charles  Megarge,  John  Tiers, 

S.  Morris  Wain,  Franklin  Piatt, 

C  W.  Churchman,  J.  W.  Ashmead, 

Gideon  Scull,  W.  E.  Whelan, 

John  W.  Field,  William  Wurts, 

A.  Miller,  John  Grigg, 

George  R.  Justice,  Robert  Toland, 

H.  C.  Carey,  E.  D.  lugraham, 

Charles  Miller,  J.  S.  Riddle, 
Henry  Horn. 

Tn  reference  to  this  memorial,  the  Joint  Board  of  Directors,  in  their 
address    of  June  11,    1848,  say    to    the  people  of  New  Jersey — "When 
Ari  Iress  1848     ''foreign  influences  are  invoked  to  commence  a  crusade  against  the  institu- 
p.  6,  "  tions  of  the  State — destroy  the  prosperity  of  her  citizens,  and  abolish  her 

"revenue, — the  time  seems  to  have  come  when  the  victims  proposed  to  be 
"first  ofi"ered  upon  the  altar  are  furnished  with  a  proper  occasion  to  speak 
"  in  their  defence." 

Accordingly  at  p.  23,  they  brand  as  a  "falsehood,"  the  statement  "that 
"New  Jersey  imposes  a  tax  upon  the  citizens  of  other  States  for  travelling 
"  on  her  railroads."  "  In  all  the  reports,  in  every  paper  emanating  from 
"  them,  it  has  everywhere  been  mentioned  as  a  tax  imposed  tq)oii  the  com- 
'^ panies,  and  not  vpon  the  passengers." 

Again  at  p.  25,  they  say,  "  To  lie  down  and  be  trampled  upon,  or  to 
"stand  silently  by,  and  listen  to  the  storm  of  vituperation  and  abase,  which 
"is  raised  for  the  ultimate  purpose  o{  pi  under  in  r/  them,  at  the  same  time  of 
"character  and  of  property,  is  as  far  from  their  duty,  as  it  is  from  their 
"disposition." 
Address  18-16,  It  is  only  fair  to  hear  them  in  their  own  defence.  But,  if  undeniable 
p.  12  and  16.  facts  are  not  stronger  than  v:ords, — their  own  language,  used  two  years 
before,  may  be  quoted  in  reply  by  "  strangers  and  persons  nox  living 
"  IN  New  Jersey." 

The  pretence  about  taxing  the  companies  only,  and  not  the  passengers, 
is  a  miserable  mockery  j  and  the  Philadelphia  Memorialists  might  well 
ask,  "  Who  are  the  plunderers  ?" 

In  restraining  this  confederacy  of  corporations,  the  most  extensive  and 
powerful  that  has  ever  existed  in  this  country,  difl&culties  may  appear  in 
the  way  of  private  effort  and  of  legislation,  but  the  case  is  not  beyond  a 
remedy. 

Their  charters  are  the  statutes  of  another  State,  and  cannot  be  touched. 
But  the  companies  themselves  have  come  upon  our  soil — have  thrust  them- 
selves within  our  jurisdiction ;  they  transact  extensive  business  in  Pennsyl- 
vania— they  have  branches  here.  Those  branches  and  that  business  are 
amenable  to  our  legislation. 

That  the  Trenton  and  Philadelphia  railroad  company/,  and  the  Camden 
and  Philadelphia  steamboat  ferry  company  are  virtually  branches  of  the 
consolidated  companies,  is  sufficiently  manifest. 
Report  1850,  In  respect  to  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  railroad  company,  the  agree- 

ITs/'  ^^'  '^^  ™^°*'  ^^  ^P^^^  '^"'  ^^^^'  stated  in  the  preamble  to  be  intended  for  the 
amalgamation  or  consolidation  of  the  stocks,  proves  the  connection  of  the 
three  companies.     The  operative  clauses  are  here  transcribed  : 

"Now  this  Indenture  made  this  22d  day  of  April,  A.  D.,  1836,  between 
the  President  and  Directors  of  the  Delaware  and  Raritan  Canal  and  the 
Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  and  Transportation  Companies,  parties  of  the 
one  part,  and  the  President  and  Directors  of  the  Trenton  and  Philadelphia 
Rail  Road  Company,  party  of  the  other  part,  Witnesseth,  that  the  said  par- 
ties for  themselves  and  their  successors,  severally,  do  hereby  covenant  and 


PHILADELPHIA   AND    TRENTON   COMPANY   DEFAULTERS.  28 

agree,  and  each  with  the  other,  and  their  and  each  of  their  successors,  that 
from  and  after  the  first  day  of  June  next  ensuing,  during  and  until  the 
expiration  of  their  said  charters,  respectively,  the  clear  profits  arising  from 
the  stock  of  the  said  companies  shall  be  divided  among  the  stockholders  of 
the  said  companies,  share  and  share  alike." 

Notwithstanding  this  "  amalgamation,"  it  is  remarkable  that  there  has   j^Morr'eV'^ 
been  a  difference  in  the  nominal  amounts  of  the  dividends  declared  by  the    Sec'y. 
companies  only,  but  there  has  been  no  difi"erence  in  the  amount  of  profits   Report  1850. 
actually  received  or  appropriated.  aud^iGi"  ^^^ 

Tlie  folloioing  is  from  the  Philadelphia  Eoenincj  Bulletin. 

OFFICE  PHILADA.  AND  TRENTON  R.  R.  CO.,  ) 

Philada.,  12th  Jan.  1852.         J 
(15^  Notice. — The  Directors  have  this  day  declared  a  dividend  of  four 
per  cent,  from  the  profits  of  the  company  for  six  months,  payable  to  the 
stockholders  or  their  legal  representatives,  on  and  after  the  ITth  instant,  at 
the  otfice  of  this  company. 

The  stockholders  will  also  receive  one  per  cent,  from  the  Camden  and 
Amboy  Rail  Road  and  Transportation  Company,  at  their  ofiice,  for  their 
interest  in  said  company. 

J.  MORRELL,  Sec'y. 

Mr.  James  Morrell,  Secretary,  before  the  N.  J.  Commissioners,  swears  Report  isso. 
"The  dividends  for  the  last  few  years  have  been  eight  per  cent,  per  annum,  appx.,  p.  161. 
"  which  have  all  been  paid  over  semi  annually  as  declared.  We  draio  an 
"order  in  favor  of  each  of  our  stockholders  separately  on  the  C.  and  A. 
"  Railroad  Company  for  the  difference  between  our  dividends  and  theirs, 
"  so  as  to  equalize  the  dividends  of  the  stock  of  both  companies.  This  dif- 
^^ference  has  been  two  per  cent,  every  six  months,  for  some  time  past." 

That  is  to  say,  making  tioelve  per  cent,  per  annum. 

The  Pennsylvania  charter  of  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road 
Company,  at  Sect.  15,  contains  these  words : 

"  Dividends  of  so  much  of  the  profits  of  the  institution  as  shall   appear   Laws  Penn- 
"  advisable  to  Ihe  managers  shall  be  declared  at  least  twice  a  year,"  &c.  &c.,   sylvunia, 
"  they   shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  amount  of  the  net  profits  of  the  com-   ^^  95"  "'  ^' ' 
2)a7it/,"  &c. 

''  And  provided  further,  That  whenever  the  dividend  shall  exceed  six  per 
"  cent,  per  annum,  the  said  company  shall  pay  a  tax  of  evjht  per  cent,  on 
"  all  such  dividends  above  six  per  cent,  into  the  treasury  of  this  State  for 
"  the  use  of  the  commonwealth." 

No  such  tax  had  been  paid  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  except  a  trifling 
amount  overlooked  in  the  statement  furnished  by  the  Treasury  department 
to  the  author  when  he  exposed  this  evasion  to  the  Commonwealth  in  April, 
1852.  In  consequence  of  this  exposure  the  State  officers  have  recently 
collected  from  the  companies  a  part  of  the  sum  withheld;  a  pittance,  how- 
ever, compared  to  the  amount  really  due. 

There  has  been  obtained  for  taxes  on  dividends  declared  in 

in  183G,  '37,  '38,  $3197.44 

With  interest  thereupon,  2302.15 


35499.59 


This  is  a  commentary  on  the  assertion  put  forth,  that  they  had  j^aid  all 
such  taxes  when  due. 

There  are  two  taxes  payable  by  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road 
Company  to  the  State. 

First,  under  the  charter,  a  tax  of  eight  per  cent,  upon  any  excess  of  divi-   I-a^s  Penn- 
dend  beyond  six  per  cent.     And  also,  under  the  general  laws  of  1840,  '43,    j^'g^g'^Q*' 
and '44,  taxing  corporations,  "  in  addition  to  any  taxes  now  imposed  by   ci2.      '  ^' 


24 


DEFAULTERS  TO  PENNSYLVANIA. 


Laws  1843, 
121. 

Laws  1843- 
44,  sec.  33, 


law,"  a  rate  of  one  half  mill   on  every  dollar  of  the  value  of  the  capital 

stock  ''  for  every  one  per  cent,  of  dividend,  ov  profit  made  or  declared." 
Hence,  by  the  plan  of  declaring  a  small   dividend,  (suppose  eight  per 

cent.,  and  receiving  four  from    the  Camden  and  Amboy  Company,)  the 

Pennsylvania  taxes  are  evaded  in  two  ways. 

Suppose   the  Phihidelphia  and   Trenton  Company  gained  only  six  per 

cent.,  then  they  were  liable  to  pay 

1.  Under  the  charter,  $ 

2.  Under  the  act  of  June,  1840,  3  mills  per  dollar  on  the 

capital,  $999,200,  $2997.60 

But  suppose  they  declared  twelve  per  cent,  dividend,  then  they  should 

1.  By  charter,  8  per  cent,  on  6  per  cent,  the  excess. 
6  per  cent,  on  $999,200  is  $59,952.00, 

of  which  8  per  cent,  is,  $4796.16 

2.  State  tax,  one  half  mill  on  every  1  per  cent,  is  6  mills 

on  $999,200,  or  5995.20 

Total,  per  annum,  110,791.36 

In  1836,  the  joint  companies  divided  twelve  per  cent.  The  Philadelphia 
and  Trenton  Company  paid  no  tax  to  Pennsylvania  that  year.  They  ought 
to  have  paid  §4796.16.  Nothing  whatever  appears  to  have  been  received 
from  them  until  1843,  when  they  commenced  paying  the  State  tax  on  cor- 
porations, frittered  down  by  the  contrivance  of  small  dividends. 

The  sum  payable  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  by  the  Philadelphia  and 
Trenton  Kail  Road  Company  under  their  charter  alone,  estimated  upon  the 
dividends  declared  by  the  joint  companies,  from  1835  to  Dec.  31,  1851, 
would  amount  in  principal  money  to  about  $62,000.00 

And  interest  thereupon,  calculated  from  the  dates  when  it 

ought  to  have  been  paid,  would  amount  to  about  23,176.00 


Sep.  1852.        The  whole  sum  now  paid  upon  this  account  reaches  only 


$85,176.00 
8,993.60 


Report  1850, 
part  2,  ps.  43 
to  46,  and  p. 
55.     Appx., 
160  and  161. 
See  also  State 
Directors' 
reps,  subse- 
•juently. 


Balance  due,  $76,182.40 

The  dividends  of  the  joint  companies  from  1836  to  1851,  both  inclusive, 
have  amounted  to  173  J  per  cent. — averaging  something  less  than  eleven- per 
cent,  per  annum,  during  sixteen  years.* 

The  profits  of  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Company  being  the  same, 
the  State  tax  of  one  half  mill  for  every  one  per  cent,  of  ^^ profit  viade"  on 
their  capital,  (whether  divided  or  not  is  unimportant  here,)  would  average 
per  annum,  more  than  $5,495.60 


During  eleven  years,  (1841  to  Jan.  1852,)  the  whole  profits 
having  been  122  per  cent,  the  State  tax  thereupon  would 
amount  to  about 

Of  this,  from  1843  to  1851,  they  have  paid  to  the  State  about 

Deficit,  about 
Interest  upon  this  sum,  averaging,  suppose, yjye  years, 


560,951.20 
38,000.00 

$22,951.20 
6,885.36 

$29,836.56 


*  The  dividends  of  the  Joint  Companies  have  been  as  follows: 


1836,  12  per 

cent. 

1841, 

6 

per  cent. 

1847, 

12  per  cent. 

1837,  8   ' 

1642, 

6 

1848, 

12   " 

1838,  10   ' 

1843, 

7 

1849, 

12   « 

1839,  7   ' 

1844, 

8 

1850, 

10]  " 
20  J  " 

1840,  6  1  ' 
And  extra.  8J  )  * 

1845, 

9 

And  extra, 

1846, 

10 

1851, 

10   " 

EXCUSES. — IDENTITY   OF   INTERESTS. 


:lo 


It  may,  therefore,  be  estimated  that  the  aggregate  amount  of  taxes  accru- 
\\i<f  prior  to  Dec.  31,  1851,  with  interest,  still  unpaid  to  Pennsylvania,  stands 
about  thus : 

Balance  of  tax  under  the  charter,  •  876,182.40 

Balance  of  State  tax  on  corporations,  29,836.56 

$106,018.96 


The  pretext  upon  which  thi.s  payment  is  resi.sted  is,  that  the  money  was 
not  earned  upon  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton,  but  upon  the  Camden  and 
Amboy  Rail  Roads. 

The  excuse  has  no  application  to  the  State  tax.  But,  it  has  been  seen  that 
in  New  Jersey,  the  monopolists  have  evaded  the  payment  of  the  tax  of  half 
the  amount  over  three  dollars  which  they  received  for  (34)  through  trans- 
portation, because  it  was  not  earned  upon  the  Camden  and  Amboy  roads, 
but  upon  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  route,  and  now  they  object  to  pay 
the  tax  to  Pennsylvania  because  the  money  was  not  earned  upon  the  Phila- 
delphia and  Trenton  road,  but  by  the  other  companies.  Granting  (what 
may  be  true  enough)  that  the  money  was  earned  no  where,  the  excuse  would 
be  unavailing.  Dividends  were  to  be  made,  not  of  the  profits  of  the  road, 
but  "  of  the  institution" — "the  net  profits  acquired  by  the  company" — and 
not  upon  the  smallest  sum  to  which  artful  management  could  shrink  the 
apparent  profits  of  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  road. 

The  taxes  due  to  Pennsylvania  have  been  invested  in  real  estate  for  the 
use  of  the  monopolies.  31r.  Secretary  Morrell  swears,  "  They  own  con- 
"  siderable  real  estate  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  and  other  places."  But  it 
was  not  until  1848  that  they  were  authorized  to  hold  real  estate  in  the  city, 
and  then  only  "  so  much  real  estate  between  Walnut  and  Dock  streets  as 
"  may  be  required  for  landings,  and  the  convenient  conducting  of  the  husi- 
"  ness  of  the  said  Company,"  where  they  have  purchased  very  valuable 
property. 

If  it  should  be  asked,  What  did  this  railroad,  two  miles  off,  in  Kensington, 
want  with  "  landings"  at  Walnut  street  wharf?  What  *'  business"  had  they 
there  ?  The  answer  is  ready.  The  business  of  the  joint  monopolies  is  the 
business  of  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road  Company. 

William  H.  Gatzmer,  under  oath,  declares  "  the  wharves  in  front  of  the 
"  Walnut  street  block  were  built  by  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Rail  Road 
"  Company,  and  they  now  have  the  use  of  them  by  the  payment  of  an  annual 
"rent  to  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail  Road  Company.  They  also 
"  rent  the  offices  used  by  them  in  Philadelphia  of  the  same  company.  I 
"  should  except  the  pier  next  to  Walnut  street,  which  was  built  by  the  Ferry 
"  Company."  Thus  it  appears  for  ichose  use  this  real  estate  is  held,  in 
violation  of  law. 

By  the  supplement  to  their  charter,  March  21,  1835,  the  Philadelphia 
and  Trenton  Rail  Road  Company  were  prohibited  from  purchasing  any 
stock  in  any  other  company,  after  the  expiration  of  five  years  from  that 
date,  namely,  the  21st  March,  1840. 

Nevertheless,  January  3],  1849,  (nearly  nine  years  after  the  expiration 
of  the  privilege,)  the  joint  monopolies  transferred  to  the  Philadelphia  and 
Trenton  Rail  Road  Company  the  900  shares  of  Trenton  Bridge  stock,  for 
the  price  of  845,877.56. 

Was  this  also  done  to  sink  the  apparent  profits  of  this  Pennsylvania  road  ? 
It  is  unnecessary  to  add  many  further  details. 

The  accounts  of  the  companies  hive  been  kept  separate,  and  a  separate 
organization  maintained,  but  the  business,  in  fact,  has  not  been  kept 
separate. 

The  chief  engineer  and  superintendent  of  both  roads,  are  the  same  per- 
sons. The  executive  committee  of  the  joint  monopolies  exercise  jurisdiction 
over  both  ways.  The  monopolists  furnish  all  the  steamboats,  machinery, 
locomotives,  cars,  fuel,  and  employ  and  pay  the  hands.     The  Philadelphia 


Ilereinbefo  • 
at  p.  15. 


See  charter 
Laws  Peniia,, 
1831-2,  p.  95. 


Report  1S50, 
appx.,  161. 
See  proviso, 
to  sec.  2.  of 
charter.  Laws 
18.31-2,  p.  88. 
Laws  Penna. 
Sup.  to  char- 
ter April  6, 
1848,  p.  35.5. 


Report  1850, 
appx.,  p.  124. 
See  also  p. 
130,  Free- 
man's evi- 
dence. 


Laws  Penna., 
1834-35,  p.  83 

and  84. 

Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  85. 


Report  1850, 
app.x.,  p.  122. 
Also  p.  159. 


26 


CAMDEN   AND    PHILADELPHIA   FERRY   COMPANY. 


W.H.Gatzmer 
Report,  1850, 
appx.,  p.  121. 
J.  R.  Thomp- 
son, lb.  appx., 
p.  9. 


iStory  J.  in 
Terrett  vs. 
Taylor  et  al., 
9  Cranch.  51. 
23  Wendell, 
194,  &c. 


See  charter  of 

the  P.  and  T. 

R.  R.  CO.,  sec. 

20. 

Laws  1831-2, 

p.  96. 


Laws  of  N.  J., 
1836,  p.  265 
to  270. 

State  Direc- 
tors' report 
for  isir,  p. 

10. 


Report  1350, 
p.  88. 


Report  1850, 
appx.,  106. 


Report  1850, 
appx.,  p.  9. 


and  Trenton  lines  are  sometimes  run  on  the  New  Jersey  side  of  the  river 
from  Camden.  The  repairs  of  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  are  mainly 
done  by  the  workmen  of  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Rail  Road.  They  mutually 
pass  each  other's  extensive  free  lists.  The  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Rail 
Road  purchases  and  holds  real  estate  for  the  use  of  the  monopoly,  and 
shares  in  all  the  profits  of  the  consolidated  companies — is  thus  a  partner  in 
fact,  whatever  name  may  be  given  to  the  connexion.  Their  interests  are 
undistinguishable.  They  will  hardly  escape  payment  of  the  taxes  due  to 
Pennsylvania.  The  State  could  pay  herself,  if  necessary,  by  proceedings  in 
forfeiture  of  their  charter.  In  view  of  the  gross  misuse  and  abuse  of  their 
franchises,  public  justice  would  not  only  cancel  their  charter,  but  would 
escheat  and  confiscate  all  the  real  estate  held  by  this  company,  or  by  others 
for  them,  not  "  necessary  or  incident  to  making  and  maintaining  the  said 
"  railroad,"  from  Kensington  to  Trenton  bridge.  [See  Charter,  sec.  2. 
Aho,  Law  relative  to  escheats,  April  6,  1833  ;  Laws  Penn.,  1833,  p.  167.] 

There  are  abundant  grounds  legally  to  repeal  the  charter  of  the  company. 
The  power  is  expressly  reserved  in  that  charter,  which  they  have  violated 
in  many  ways — for  instance,  by  the  contrivances  to  evade  State  taxation  ;  by 
purchasing  the  Trenton  bridge  stock  in  1849  ;  by  lending  their  franchises  to 
cover  real  estate  in  Philadelphia,  not  necessary  for  the  railroad  from  Ken- 
sington to  Trenton  bridge,  but  purchased  and  held  for  the  use  of  a  foreign 
corporation,  in  violation  of  law  ;  and,  in  short,  by  merging,  as  it  were,  their 
corporate  existence  in  that  of  a  "  gigantic,  irresponsible,  and  hydra- 
headed  MONOPOLY,"  which  discriminates  against  the  citizens,  and  defies  the 
rights  and  the  power  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  Camden  and  Philadelphia  Steamboat  Ferry  Company 
is  another  form  of  the  Napoleon  dynasty. 

It  was  chartered  by  New  Jersey,  .  March  5,  1836,  with  a  capital  of 
^100,000  in  2000  shares  of  ^50  each,  and  power  to  establish  a  steamboat 
ferry  between  the  cities  of  Camden  and  Philadelphia,  and  with  authority,  Sec. 
1,  to  hold  real  estate  "  necessary  to  carry  into  eflPect  this  act,  and  no  more." 

It  is  stated  that  a  sale  was  made  by  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad 
Company  to  the  new  company  of  two  steam  ferry  boats,  and  certain  real 
estate  in  Camden,  &c.,  at  665,550,  for  which  the  joint  companies  received 
1271  shares,  a  majority,  of  stock  at  par.  This  stock  stands  in  the  names  of 
the  Presidents,  R.  L.  Stevens  and  R.  F.  Stockton,  intrust  for  the  companies. 

This  is  supposed  to  have  occurred  in  1837  or  1838 — more  probably  it 
was  in  1836.  1271  shares. 

The  Bank  of  Kentucky  owns  512      " 

Leaving  in  private  hands,  207      " 

Out  of  the  original  number,  2000  shares. 

(This  number  is  slightly  increased.) 

J.  W.  Mickle  is  President.  Wm.  H.  Gatzmer  is  believed  to  be  Secretary, 
and  is  agent  for  the  interests  of  the  joint  companies. 

It  has  been  seen  that  this  New  Jersey  ferry  company  was  invested  by  the 
Legislature  with  Pennsylvania  franchises  by  Acts  of  Asssembly  of  1838, 
1840,  and  1843,  which  will  be  noticed  hereafter.  In  requital,  the  company 
assists  and  shares  in  the  practice  of  discriminating  against  the  citizens  of 
Pennsylvania  and  of  other  States,  by  double  charges  upon  through  above 
wai/  freight. 

Mr.  Secretary/  John  R.  Thomson  testifies  before  the  New  Jersey  Commis- 
sioners (see  Report,  1850,  appx.  p.  9)  that — 

The  joint  companies  paid  this  Ferry  Company,  from  Oct.,  1838,  to  the 
winter  of  1849,  for  the  crossing  of  their  passengers  in  spring,  summer,  and 
fall,  Jive  cents,  and  in  winter  ten. 

■  "  The  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Railroad  lines,"  (says  Mr.  Thomson,) 
"when  run  vm  Camden,  paid,  for  the  morning  line.  Jive  cents,  and  for  the 
ni^ht  line  ten  cents,  for  each  passenger/'  throughout  the  year. 


CONNECTION   WITH   MONOPOLISTS.  27 


"  The  freighl  transportation,  when  run  via  Camden,  paid  the  Ferry  Company, 
For  through  freight,  6  cents. 

For  wa^  "  3 

For  cheap  "  1  cent  per  100  lbs. 

''Since  January,  1847, 

For  throiKih  freight,  4  cents 

For  cheap  "  1  cent  per  100  lbs." 

The  family  complexion  is  already  very  manifest. 
The  intimacy  of  the  Ferry  Company  with  the  joint  monopolies  is,  in  some 

respects,  very  interesting.  n    .  .    .t,    r    ^u  .  Report  1850. 

ir.  H.  Gat^mer,  swears.  "  My  attention  being  called  to  the  fact  that  re-  ^^^^  ^  p  ^^o. 
"  ports  have  been  circulated  to  the  eflfect  that  the  Caviden  and  Amhoy 
"  Company  and  the  Camden  Ferry  Company  vsed  coal  off  the  same  heap, 
<'  and  wood  off' (he  same  pile,  indiscriminately,  I  have  to  say  with  regard  to 
"that,  that  the  affairs  of  the  two  companies  are  kept  entirely  distinct;  and 
"  if  one  uses  the  wood  or  coal  of  the  other,  or  anything  else,  an  account  is 
"  kqjt,  and  settlements  made  thereof  from  time  to  time." 

3Ir.  Gatzmer  further  testifies,  they  made  a  loan,  August  22,  1840,  from 
the  Camden  and  Amboy  Company  of  §37,500,  in  bonds,  and  other  funds, 
amounting  to  841,554  82,  This  loan,  says  the  New  Jersey  Investigation  of  Appx.,  p.  123 
1848,  (p.°22,)  "  was  to  enable  the  company  to  place  the  ferry  in  a  perma- 
nently good  condition."  The  permanently  bad  condition  of  that  ferry,  com- 
pared with  the  Brooklyn  ferries,  has  been  notorious  for  a  dozen  years. 

Wm.  H.  Gatzmer  swears,  (Report  1850,  appx.,  p.  123.)  "  this  loan  was 
"  made  by  the  Ferry  Company  to  enable  them  to  purchase  out  Jacob  Ridg- 
"  way's  ferry  property  at  the  foot  of  Market  and  Arch  streets,  Philada.,  and 
"  the  tavern  houses  thereto  annexed,  and  the  ferry  and  ferry-house  at  Camden, 
"  now  called  Cakes  Ferry,  besides  some  stabling  and  dwelling  houses  in 
"  Camden,  being  all  the  property,  I  understand,  owned  by  Mr.  Ridgway  in 
"  Camden.  There  was  also  included  in  the  purchase  a  tavern  properly,  situ- 
"ated  at  Bloomshury,  South  Trenton,  including  the  wharf  or  steamboat 
''landing  adjoining.  There  was  also  included  in  the  purchase  from  3Ir.  R. 
"  THE  STEAMBOAT  HoRNET, — and  a  stipulation  to  purchase  of  his  tenants, 
"Messrs.  Reeves  and  Knisell,  the  steamboats  Tim.  llVay  and  Philadelphia, 
"used  on  said  ferries,  and  which  were  accordingly  so  purchased.  Tlie  fix- 
"tures  of  the  said  ferry  and,  I  think,  a  small  frame  dwelling,  belonging  to 
"  Mr.  Kuisell  were  included  in  the  purchase.  The  Ferry  Company  runs 
'<  two  ferries  between  Camden  and  Philadelphia.  They  rent  out  the  Arch 
«  street  ferry  landing  and  hotel.  They  still  own  the  Steamboat  landing  and 
"  tavern  house,  at  South  Trenton,  which  they  rent  out." 

Jacob  Ridgway  had  built  the  steamboat  Hornet,  (not  a  ferry  boat,)  and 
was  running  her  to  Trenton  against  the  steamboats  of  the  joint  companies. 
They  bought  out  this  opposition  in  the  name  of  the  Ferry  Company,  advan- 
ced money  for  the  purpose,  and  procured  the  addition  of  a  Section  to  a  bas- 
tardy act  of  April  11,  1840,  enabling  the  Ferry  Company  to  hold  the  real 
estate  in  Philadelphia,  "  for  the  purposes  of  said  company." 

In  1841,  the  Ferry  Company  sold  the  Hornet  to  the  Napoleon  line  for 
817,000.  She  was  quite  as  useless  to  the  Ferry  Company,  as  the  real  estate 
at  Trenton,  or  in  Philadelphia,  which  they  rented  out  to  others. 

It  is  not  to  be  disguised  that  the  Pennsylvania  privileges  of  the  Ferry 
Company  were  used  for  the  purposes  of  the  joint  monopolies  to  violate  the 
law  prohibiting  foreign  corporations  from  holding  real  estate,  directly  or  in- 
directly, in  Pennsylvania. 

In  the  answer  in  chancery  April  16,  1847,  Edwin  A.  Stevens  of  his  own 
knowledge  (and  Messrs.  JVielson  and  Thomson  upon  information)  swear  Answer,  p.  21. 
that  "  the  Walnut  street  property,  with  other  valuable  real  estate  in  Phila- 
"  delphia  adjacent  thereto,  was  purchased  in  or  about  the  year  1835  by  the 
"  said  Edwin  N.  and  his  brother  Robert  L.  Stevens  for  the  use  and  benefit  of 
"  the  Camden  and  Philadelphia  steamboat  ferry  company." 


28  REAL    ESTATE    OP   THE   FERRY   COMPANY. 

The  deed  from  Wm.  Carman  to  E.  A.  and  R.  L.  Stevens  for  the  Walnut 
street  properti/  is  dated  July  23,  1836.  (Recorded  April  9,  1840,  Gr.  S. 
No.  15,  p.  41.)  The  consideration  is  886,377. — There  was,  it  seems,  other 
Answer,  p.  23.  property.  It  appears  by  the  same  answer  under  oath,  that,  May  20,  1839, 
about  one-third  of  this  entire  estate  was  sold  by  the  Ferry  Comiwrnj  to  the 
Napoleon  line  for  ^46,666.66, — was  paid  for,  and  taken  possession  of  An 
arrangement  some  years  after  was  made  to  transfer  it  back  again,  which  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  effected  at  the  date  of  this  answer  in  chancery, 
April  16,  1847. 

Estimate  (imperfect)  of  the  property  of  the  Ferry  Company. 

1.    Walnut  street  property — Carman's,  in  1836,  (Gr.  S.  No.  15,  p. 

41,)  cost  $86,377 

The  construction  of  Bloodgood's  Hotel,  the  stores,  wharves, 
&c.,  thereupon,  must  probably  have  cost  53,623 

Answer,  p.  22.  2.  The  additional  property  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Stevens  (bal.  of 
8140,000)  adjoining—  §53,623,  may  be  the  improved  value, 
or  may  be  part  of  the  following,  or  other  estate. 

3.  Johnaon's  property,  March  1845,  R.  L.  L.  34,  p.  545.  22,030 

4.  John  Cox   lot.  May,  1845— G.  W.  R.  7,  p.  495.  13,000 

5.  Morton's  Estate,  May  27,  1845,  R.  L.  L.  42,  p.  306.  45,000 

6.  Ridgways  Philadelphia  property,  August  19,  1840, 

At  Arch  street  (G.  S.  No.  18,  p.  387)  S30,000 

At  Market  street,  (G.  S.  No.  18,  p.  389.)  140,000    170,000 

J.  W.  Uickle's  lot,  above  Market  street,  December,  1847, 

A.  W.  M.  55,  p.  155.  4,500 


All  the  above  are  vastly  increased  in  value.  §394,530 

8.  Cutting  the  Canal,  1838  to  1850— Certified  by  W.  H.  Gatzmer     30,540 

9.  Real  estate  in  Camden,  steamboats,  &c.,  subscribed  in  1830  by 

the  joint  companies.  63,550 

10.  Ridgway's  additional  property  included  in  sale  of  August "" 

19,  1840. 

1.  Real  estate  at  Trenton,  N.  J.  "^ 

2.  Real  estate  at  Camden,  |        Cost  and  value        )■ 
Two  steam  ferry  boats.             y  unknown. 


4.  Steamboat  Hornet  sold  for 
$17,000. 


J 


S 


And  there  is  other  property  held  by  this  ferry  company  of  different  kinds, 
the  whole  amounting  perhaps  to  half  a  million  in  value. 

In  December,  1847,  the  properties  numbered  3,  4,  and  5,  (Johnson's, 
Cox's,  and  Morton's,)  were  severally  conveyed  by  the  ferry  company  at  cost 
($80,030)  to  Robert  L.  Stevens  and  R.  F.  Stockton.  (R.  L.  L.  34,  545,  and 
42,  p.  303  and  306.)     No  trust  is  expressed  in  the  deeds. 

In  July,  1852,  the  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Railroad  Company,  pur- 
chased, for  $9000,  Eart's  property  (T.  H.  No.  29,  p.  405)  which  is  said  to 
bound  on  Clark,  afterwards  Johnson's,  "  now  belonging  to  the  Philadelphia 
and  Trenton  Railroad  Company."  There  is  other  estate  adjoining,  to  a  very 
large  amount  held  in  individual  names,  undoubtedly  in  trust,  and  no  doubt 
for  whose  use. 
,-.orn  Upon  all  this  accumulation  the  company  has  made  but   one  dividend  of 

appx.  123!  '     fi^G  dollars  per  share  in  February,  1849. 

This  ferry  company  has  hitherto  improperly  escaped  taxation  to  the  State 

upon  her  Pennsylvania  franchises  and  business. 

T        T>  The  act  authorizinsc   the   construction   of   the  canal  through   "Windmill 

Laws  Penna.,    _,,,  •i,*'  -ii 

1837-8,  p.  25.    Island  substantially  gave  or  recognized  a  charter. 

The  act  of  April  11,  1840,  (authorizing  them   to  purchase   §200,000  in 


ESCAPES   TAXATION. — REAL   ESTATE. 


29 


cost  value  of  real  estate  in  Philadelphia)  reserves  to  the  legislature  "  the 
"  ri^ht  to  revoke,  alter  or  amend  (he  charter  of  the  said  company." 

The  act  of  1843  gave  them  power  to  hold  real  estate  to  the  value  of 
8100,000  additional. 

By  the  Pennsylvania  laws  of  1840,  1843,  and  1844  taxing  corporations, 
particularly  by  the  declaratory  act  of  1843,  "  all  joint  stock  associations, 
"  whether  created  b}'  &c.,  &c.,  or  ichich  may  exist  hij  any  color  of  law,  for 
"  the  purpose  of  making  profits  upon  which  dividends  have  been,  or  shall 
"  be  declared,"  are  made  liable  to  taxation. 

By  the  33d  section  of  the  act  of  April  19,  1844,  ''  the  amount  of  tax 
"  chargeable  on  the  capital  stock  of  all  companies  incorporated  by,  or  under 
"any  law  of  this  commonwealth,"  which  shall  fail  to  make  and  declare  any 
dividend  or  profit ;  or  shall  make  or  declare  less  than  six  per  cent,  per  annum, 
shall  be  ascertained  by  apprauemcat  of  the  capital  stock  at  its  actual  value 
in  cash,  and  such  companies  shall  pay  a  tax  of  three  mills  on  every  dollar 
of  the  value  of  the  stock  so  appraised. 

It  would  thus  appear  that  this  ferry  company  is  legally  as  well  as  justly 
indebted  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  for  arrears  of  taxes  hitherto  evaded. 
If  estimated  on  §315,000  worth  of  real  estate  alone,  since  1840,  it  would 
amount  to  more  than  eleven  thousand  dollars. 

The  Real  estate  this  company  holds  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  stands 
on  a  footing  which  raises  more  than  a  suspicion  of  complicity  with  the  con- 
solidated companies. 

The  State  Director's  Report  for  1847,  p.  10,  after  mentioning  the  coal  lands 
held  in  Pennsylvania  in  trust  for  the  joint  companies,  says  :  "  The  other  real 
"  estate  of  the  said  companies  is  represented  to  be  only  that  used  for  their 
"  regular  business — including  their  interest  in  Walnut  street  property  in 
"  Philadeljjhia,  and  at  Bristol,  and  the  tcharves  in  Pennsylvania,  which 
"  are  held  in  like  trust  as  above  mentioned,  as  the  companies  cannot  hold 
"  lands  in  that  State." 

It  is  "  all  in  the  family."  The  monopolies  "  cannot  hold  lands  in  Penn- 
"  sylvania,"  but  her  laws  can  be  evaded  and  trampled  upon. 

The  ferry  company,  instead  of  declaring  dividends^(never  having  declared 
but  one)  has  invested  her  earnings  in  real  estate.  And  that  real  estate, 
earned  in  a  few  years,  on  a  capital  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  now 
amounts  to  several  hundreds  of  thousands.  Whether  this  real  estate  is 
necessary  for  the  purposes  of  her  business,  "  and  no  more,"  according  to  the 
limitation  of  her  New  Jersey  charter,  or  according  to  the  true  intent  of  the 
Pennsylvania  acts  of  1840  and  1843,  need  not  here  be  examined.  But 
^00  0  P^"^*^^  ^^  those  earnings  belong  to  the  consolidated  companies,  and 
Being  vested  in  real  estate  will  raise  an  implied  trust  in  their  favor.  If 
really  purchased  out  of  earnings,  it  only  proves  the  large  participation  of 
the  ferry  company  in  the  excessive  profits  of  the  joint  monopolies.  If  pur- 
chased with  funds  directly  advanced  (as  early  as  1836)  by  the  consolidated 
companies,  or  parties  on  their  behalf,  it  will  be  subject  to  a  secret  trust,  and 
to  escheat. 

Upon  the  whole,  a  majority  of  the  stock  of  this  ferry  company  being  held 
in  trust  for  the  consolidated  companies,  it  is  completely  under  their  control. 
It  aids  and  abets  and  participates  in  their  exclusive  privileges.  It  shares  in 
the  discriminating  fares  and  freights  levied  on  the  citizens  of  Pennsylvania. 
It  is  an  agent  assisting  in  their  business ;  a  borrower  of  money  and  a  pur- 
chaser of  real  estate  for  their  use,  in  violation  of  law — and  it  ought  to  be 
held  to  the  consequences. 

It  is  in  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  cancel  the  privileges  of  the  Cam- 
den and  Philadelphia  ferry  company. 

By  the  6th  section  of  the  act  authorizing  the  construction  of  the  Canal 
through  "Windmill  Island,  the  right  is  expressly  reserved.  In  the  act  of  1840, 
authorizing  them  to  purchase  real  estate — "  The  Legislature  hereby  reserves 
"  the  right  to  revoke,  alter,  or  amend  the  Charter  ot  the  said  Company,  and 


Laws  Penna., 
1S40,  ps.  287, 

2.S8. 

Law.s  Penna., 
]Si;3,  p.  395. 
Laws  Penna., 
1843,  p.  121. 


Laws  Penna. 
1844,  p.  498. 


Dated  Jan. 

12,  1848. 


But  see  here- 
inafter, p.  30. 


Report  1850, 
part  2,  p.  73. 
II).  appx.,  p. 
123  to  125. 
State  Direc- 
tor's report 

1847,  p.  10. 
Investigation 

1848,  p.  22. 
Report  1850, 
ps.  89  and  90. 
Also  appx.,  p. 
9. 

Answer  in 
chancery  E. 
A.  Stevens, 
ps.  21  to  24. 
State  Direc- 
tor's report 
for  1847,  ps.  9 
and  10. 
Report  1850, 
appx.,  ps.  9, 
also  122,  123, 
124,  and  125. 

See  act  14th 
Feb.  1838, 
section  6. 
Laws  1837-8, 
ps.  28-9. 


30 


ESCHEAT   LAW. — MONOPOLY. 


"  this  act,  whenever  they  shall  deem  proper,  in  such  manner  however  that 
"  no  injustice  be  done  to  the  Company." 

Justice  must  be  mutual.  It  has  been  seen  that  this  Ferry  Company  in 
or  about  183G,  purchased  real  estate  in  Philadelphia  to  the  amount  of 
$140,000.  In  1S40  they  bought  other  property  also  with  the  funds  of  the 
monopolists,  not  for  the  purposes  of  the  ferry,  "  to  put  it  in  a  permanently 
good  condition,"  but,  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  advanced  the  money. 
They  violated  the  Pennsylvania  law,  requiring  them  to  file  in  sixty  days  an 
account  of  the  expense  of  cutting  the  Canal,  so  that  the  County  of  Phila- 
delphia might  take  it,  if  they  pleased,  at  cost,  and  declare  it  a  public  high- 
way. Other  acts  violating  eveu  the  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  could  be 
proved  against  them  if  occasion  offered.  This  New  Jersey  Ferry  Company 
misuses  and  abuses  her  Pennsylvania  franchises  for  the  benefit  of  the  New 
Jersey  monopolists,  and,  taxing  Pennsylvanians,  herself  escapes  the  taxation 
to  which  all  Pennsylvania  Corporations  are  subjected.* 


Laws  Penna., 
1840,  p.  287, 
2S8. 


IK  18.38,  p. 
25,  29. 


See  Purdon  or 
Dunlop. 


(J  Howard,  p. 
507,  1848. 


Escheat  Law  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  Pennsylvania  act  of  Assembly"  of  April  6,  1833,  relating  to  the  es- 
cheat of  lands  held  by  foreign  Corporations,  says  : 

"  Whereas  it  is  contrary  to  the  laws  and  policy  of  the  State  for  any  Cor- 
"  poration  to  prevent  or  impede  the  circulation  of  landed  property,  from 
"  man  to  man,  without  a  license  from  the  Commonwealth,  and  no  Corpora- 
"  tion  either  of  this  State,  or  of  any  other  State,  though  lawfully  incorpo- 
"  rated  or  constituted,  can,  in  any  case,  purchase  lauds  within  this  State, 
"  either  in  its  corporate  name,  or  names  of  any  person  or  persons  whoraso- 
"  ever,  for  its  use  directly  or  indirectly,  without  incurring  the  forfeiture  of 
*'  said  lands  to  the  Commonwealth,  unless  said  purchase  be  sanctioned  and 
"  authorized  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  but  every  such  Corpora- 
"tion,  its  feoffee  or  feoffees,  hold  and  retain  the  same,  subject  to  be  divested 
"  or  dispossessed  at  any  time  by  the  Commonwealth,  according  to  due  course  of 
''  law ;" — therefore,  for  further  reasons  given,  provision  is  made  for  confis- 
cating such  property.     (Acts  of  1832-33,  p.  167.) 

Monopolies. 

From  the  State  of  New  Jersey  herself,  justice  to  the  rest  of  the  Union 
may  not  be  hoped  for  until  she  shall  be  disengaged  from  the  coils  thrown 
around  her  by  this  "  gigantic,  irresponsible  and  hydra-headed  monopoly." 

An  attempt  was  made  in  1851,  and  repeated  in  1852,  in  the  New  Jersey 
Legislature,  to  incorporate  a  Camden  and  Keyport  Railroad  Company. 
The  object  of  the  road  was  to  connect  the  agricultural  districts  around  Bur- 
lington county  with  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  to  open  a  new  com- 
munication. 

The  opposition  was  made  on  the  ground  of  the  sanctity  of  the  exclusive 
privileges  given  to  the  Joint  Companies.  On  the  other  hand  it  was  shown, 
under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  that  Corpo- 
ration franchises  are  liable  to  be  taken  for  public  use,  like  other  property 
upon  making  compensation.  Nobody  seemed  to  doubt  the  right  of  New 
Jersey  to  make  a  valid  grant  of  such  an  exclusive  monopoly.  5lr.  Broicn, 
from  Burlington,  in  his  speech  in  the  House  of  Assembly,  spoke  "  of  the 
"  Directors  and  Stockholders  of  these  Companies,  the  members  of  tiie  bar  em- 
"  ployed  or  retained,  or  in  some  way  welded  to  those  corporations,  and  the  vast 
*'  crowd  of  politicians  of  all  grades,  who  for  interested  or  inscrutable  reasons 
*'  evince  such  deep  concern  in  consummating  all  the  schemes  of  these  Com- 
"  panics,  and  who  are  every  where,  like  a  tree  of  gloomy  shade,  snreading 
"  its  branches  from  Sussex  to  Cape  May,  and  driving  its  roots  into  the 
"  masses  of  society."     "  They  are  strongly  suspected,"  said  he,  '<  of  direct  or 

*  In  1852,  Gov.  Biglev,  upon  grounds  of  public  policy,  vetoed  an  act  of  the  Legisla- 
ture wliich  authorized  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company  to  hold  $300,000  worth 
of  real  estate  at  their  terminus  in  West  Philadelphia. 


AGGRANDIZEMENT. — REMEDIES. 


31 


Report  1850, 
appx.,  p.  3G 
to  46. 


Stevens' 
Memorial. 


"  indirect  interference  in  the  popular  elections,  and  of  intermeddling  with 
"  our  legislation." 

The  bill,  by  the  exertions  of  the  monopolists  on  both  occasions,  was  de- 
feated by  a  very  decided  vote. 

These  insatiable  Companies  are  preparing  for  further  aggrandizement. 
In  Bordentow.n,  Camden,  Philadelphia,  and  elsewhere,  they  are  vastly  ex- 
tending their  possessions.  Besides  their  river  property  at  Bristol.,  Tacony 
and  Philadelphia,  the  monopolists  own  the  only  wharf  at  Trenton.  At 
Bordentoini  they  possess  the  whole  river  wharf  front.  They  have  driven 
other  steamboats  to  land  at  Whitehi!/.,  some  two  miles  below,  where  also 
they  own  the  principal  wharf.  The  Burlington  landing  is  chiefly  in  their 
hands.  They  have  thirty  acres  of  shore  property  in  Camden,  with  five 
or  six  hundred  feet  of  wharf,  extensive  piers,  and  perhaps  2000  feet  of 
river  front.  And  here  the  monopolists  would  be  very  much  obliged  to  "  the 
blind  giant  of  Pennsylvania,"  if  (at  the  expense  of  millions, — sufficient  to 
build  another  Railway  to  New  York,)  the  citizens  of  Philadelphia  should 
be  kind  enough  to  be  advised  by  them, — seek  to  deprive  the  owners  of 
Windmill  Island  of  their  property,  dig  up  its  sand-bars,  (a  mile  and  a  half 
in  length,  and  in  ten  feet  water,  a  thousand  feet  wide,) — blast  its  rocks,  and 
place  the  materials  on  their  Camden  water  lots, — leaving  a  shoal,  dangerous 
indeed  to  shipping,  but  over  which  their  steamboat  the  John  Stevens,  (badly 
as  she  steers,)  might  perhaps  be  able  to  turn, — but  then,  it  would  render 
their  Camden  estate  worth  an  immensity  to  the  monopolists,  and  would 
build  up  an  untaxed  rival  to  the  Port  of  Philadelphia. 

The  extensive  business  directly  transacted  in  Pennsylvania  by  these  con- 
solidated monopolies  cannot  be  here  detailed.  They  own  eight  steamboats 
on  the  waters  of  the  Delaware,  and  as  many  on  the  waters  of  the  Ilaritan. 
They  are  believed  to  be  interested  largely  in  other  steamboats  and  other  pro- 
perty on  the  Delaware.  They  have  been  engaged  in  mining  coal  in  Schuyl- 
kill county,  and  were  interested  in  coal  boats  to  a  large  amount.  They  have 
been  interested  in  running  steam  vessels  in  opposition  to  others.  At  their 
offices  and  depots  in  Philadelphia  a  large  proportion  of  their  receipts  for 
fares  and  freights  (including  the  very  discriminations  against  our  own  citi- 
zens), is  actually  collected.  Their  officers  and  parties  interested  can  be 
brought  within  Pennsylvania  jurisdiction.  Their  monopoly  is  practically 
upon  our  soil,  and  it  can  be  restrained  or  repressed  by  our  laws. 

The  consolidated  monopolies  themselves  might  be  taxed  upon  their  offices, 
their  business  and  their  estate  in  Pennsylvania. 

Their  exorbitant  freights  and  fares  might  be  curtailed  by  legislation, 
and  any  infringement  of  such  laws  might  be  punished  in  our  own  courts. 

But  it  has  been  urged  by  their  anxious  advocates,  and  even  threatened  by 
the  monopolists  themselves,  before  a  Committee  of  the  Legislature,  that  any 
attempt  at  taxation  by  Pennsylvania  would  drive  them  across  the  river  to 
New  Jersey  :  that  they  would  extend  their  road  on  their  own  side,  and  com- 
municate with  Baltimore  across  the  State  of  Delaware.  In  this  way,  to  be 
sure,  the  insignificant  trade  and  travel  of  Philadelphia,  with  her  coal  and  iron, 
might  he  altogether  avoided  and  distressed. 

The  idle  threat  could  not  be  executed.  The  attempt  could  be  defeated. 
It  would  be  impossible  for  them  to  take  their  business  across  the  river,  any- 
more than  their  real  estate  and  their  Philadelphia  and  Trenton  Hail  Ptoad, 
which,  it  is  said,  they  want  to  extend  along  the  wharves  to  Vine  street,  into 
the  city  of  Philadelphia. 

The  indispensable  necessity  of  this  road  to  them  is  well  described  and 
urged  by  John  E,.  Thomson,  their  secretary,  in  his  testimony. 

After  declaring  the  wise  policy  of  its  purchase,  which  avoided  a  disas- 
troiis  opposition,  he  mentions  the  difficulties  and  obstructions  by  ice  to  the 
passage  of  the  Delaware  in  winter,  and  says —  "This  road,  therefore,  fur- 
"  nished  a  means  (and  the  only  one)  by  which  at  all  seasons,  and  under 
"  almost  every  conceivable  circumstance,  the  intercourse  between  the  great 
"cities  would  not  be  interrupted.". 


Report  1850, 
appx.,  123. 


Report  1850, 
appx.,  124. 
Report  1850, 
appx.,  p.  30. 
Also  report 
1850,  p.  99. 


Report  1850, 
appx.,  p.  8 


CONCLUSION. 


Has  Pennsylvania  no  public  spirit  ?  Is  she,  too,  at  the  mercy  of  the  mo- 
nopolists ?  Will  she  not  exert  ber  power? 

But  the  city  of  New  York  will  hardly  stand  silently  by,  and  suffer  her 
trade  and  intercourse  with  the  entire  South  to  be  embarrassed  by  the  vam- 
pires who  have  fastened  themselves  upon  the  main  artery  of  communica- 
tion. Will  not  her  enterprising  people, — shall  not  their  legislature  assist  in 
repressing  this  public  evil  ? 

The  New  York  pilotage  monopoly  was  remedied  by  New  Jersey  laws. 
Cannot  the  New  Yorkers  do  something  for  their  country  ? 

It  is  manifest  from  the  character  and  past  conduct  of  these  companies 
that  nothing  but  the  most  stringent  enactments  on  the  part  of  the  States 
alone  could  reach  the  case.  The  interests  of  the  monopolists,  but  not  of  the 
public,  are  subserved  by  imagining  doubts,  and  difficulties,  and  'lions  in  the 
path.'     Concerted  determination  is  the  one  thing  wanted. 

The  authority  of  the  Congress  of  United  States  has  been  heretofore  in- 
voked, and  might  be,  more  effectually,  again. 

On  the  24th  of  March,  1852,  the  state  of  New  Jersey  passed  an  act  sub- 
stantially taxing  gold  and  silver  passing  across  her  soil.  If  all  the  Califor- 
nia gold  passing  and  repassing  should  pay  this  tax,  the  state  would  probably 
derive  a  revenue  of  §30,000  a  year. 

If  that  State  has  a  right  to  tax  the  transportation  of  bullion  two  cents 
for  every  ten  miles,  she  may  tax  it  indefinitely,  and  she  has  a  right  to  en- 
force such  imposts,  if  necessary,  by  means  of  custom  houses  and  armed 
force.  How  far  this  may  contribute  to  remove  the  United  States  Mint  from 
the  city  of  Philadelphia  remains  to  be  seen.  The  unconstitutionality  of  this 
Act  should  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  Congress. 

Let  us  have  an  untaxed  national  road. 

In  the  meantime  the  citizens  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  should 
encourage  and  establish  rapid  sea  communication  by  powerful  steamships. 

The  business  of  transportation  between  the  cities  is  yet  in  its  infancy.  If 
in  1846  it  exceeded  one  hundred  millions,  in  value,  by  the  Napoleon  line,  it 
probably  amounts  to  several  hundreds  now. 

That  the  people  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  and  of  the  entire  Nation, 
shall  tamely,  silently,  and  without  an  effort,  submit  to  these  exaclions  upon 
their  business  and  social  intercourse,  by  the  New  Jersey  monopolists  forever, 
is  a  supposition  that  cannot  be  entertained. 


Finis. 


DEMCO 
PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Tan   Pressboard 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  0112  064074138 


